Tozer v. Tozer, 83-626
| Citation | 121 Wis.2d 187,358 N.W.2d 537 |
| Decision Date | 09 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-626,83-626 |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of William S. TOZER, Petitioner-Respondent and Cross-Appellant, v. Catherine L. TOZER, Appellant and Cross-Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Wisconsin |
Mark H. Hoskins, Jr., and Hoskins & Brown, Lancaster, for appellant and cross-respondent.
Thomas H. Geyer and Kopp, McKichan, Geyer, McKichan, Curry & Geyer, Platteville, and Rebecca A. Erhardt and Boardman, Suhr, Curry & Field, Madison, for petitioner-respondent and cross-appellant.
Before FOLEY, P.J., and DEAN and CANE, JJ.
Catherine Tozer appeals an order refusing to grant relief from a divorce judgment. She contends that the property division should be reopened in order to award her a portion of William Tozer's military pension. The pension was excluded from the property division as then required by federal law. After the judgment was entered, however, the United States Congress changed the law to permit division of military pensions. Because the trial court awarded more property to Catherine to partially offset the excluded pension, and because the court found that William changed his position substantially in reliance on the judgment, we affirm the order refusing to grant relief from the judgment.
William cross-appeals that part of the order refusing to modify the level of child support and maintenance that he must pay. William argues that his ability to pay support is reduced because his income is less and because he has remarried. The trial court refused to modify the support award because William voluntarily reduced his ability to pay. We affirm the trial court's decision.
The trial court rationally exercised its discretion when it refused to grant relief from the judgment. Although the change in the law regarding military pensions may justify relief from the judgment pursuant to sec. 806.07, Stats., the trial court was not required to grant such relief. We will not reverse a trial court's refusal to grant relief from judgment unless the court abused its discretion or no reasonable basis exists for the court's decision. Wisconsin Public Service Corp. v. Krist, 104 Wis.2d 381, 395, 311 N.W.2d 624, 631 (1981). In this case, the trial court made an unequal property division favorable to Catherine because William had substantial assets not subject to division. William also changed his position substantially in reliance on the divorce judgment when he terminated his military career and began receiving his pension. These facts provide a reasonable basis for the trial court's decision.
William argues on cross-appeal that the trial court erred by refusing to modify...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IN RE MARRIAGE OF FRANKE v. Franke
...285, 290, 493 N.W.2d 737 (1992) (citing Thorpe v. Thorpe, 123 Wis. 2d 424, 426, 367 N.W.2d 233 (1985)). See also Tozer v. Tozer, 121 Wis. 2d 187, 189, 358 N.W.2d 537, 539 (1984) (recognizing the power of a court to use § 806.07 to open a divorce judgment as to property division while noting......
-
Spankowski v. Spankowski
...in the law may justify relief from a divorce judgment's property division under sec. 806.07, Stats., see Tozer v. Tozer, 121 Wis.2d 187, 189, 358 N.W.2d 537, 539 (Ct.App.1984), the bankruptcy laws which operated to discharge the settlement have not changed from the time of the initial divor......
-
Ladwig v. Ladwig, 95-1111
...581, 585 (1963). Despite a change of circumstances, a trial court is not duty bound to modify support. See Tozer v. Tozer, 121 Wis.2d 187, 189, 358 N.W.2d 537, 539 (Ct.App.1984). Here the reviewing trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion by denying a reduction in support Bef......
-
Wallen v. Wallen
...his or her employment, see, e.g., Knutson v. Knutson, 15 Wis.2d 115, 117, 111 N.W.2d 905, 907 (1961), and Tozer v. Tozer, 121 Wis.2d 187, 190, 358 N.W.2d 537, 539 (Ct.App.1984); has rejected job offers, see, e.g., Klinge v. Klinge, 554 S.W.2d 474, 476-77 (Mo.Ct.App.1977); has chosen early r......
-
§ 12.03 Military Longevity and Disability Retirement
...Texas: Allison v. Allison, 700 S.W.2d 914 (Tex. 1985); Wright v. Wright, 710 S.W.2d 162 (Tex. App. 1986). Wisconsin: Tozer v. Tozer, 121 Wis.2d 187, 358 N.W.2d 537 (1984). See also, Colvin v. Colvin, 487 So.2d 840 (Miss. 1986). In Rentz v. Rentz, 535 So.2d 613, 15 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1116 (F......