Commentary: Decision contains valuable lessons on maintenance.

• Author: Herman, Gregg

Byline: Gregg Herman

As regular readers of this column know, I am sometimes mystified by the decisions of the Publication Committee and wish there were more input by practitioners in them. Such was the case initially upon reading Jantzen v. Jantzen, No. 2006AP1690 (Wis. Ct. App. Jun. 19, 2007) (recommended for publication). I soon changed my mind; the opinion contains several important lessons for practitioners and judges regarding maintenance. The decision, from District I of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, contains facts that were fairly simple, but the procedural history was somewhat convoluted. Ultimately, the trial judge ordered Louis Jantzen to pay Jean Jantzen child support and 11 years of maintenance following a contested trial. The trial court's decision was somewhat unclear and even contradictory, but in the written judgment, there was no provision for a review of maintenance at any given time. Prior to the scheduled termination of maintenance, Jean filed a motion seeking to extend the term of maintenance. Judge Michael P. Sullivan of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court, who inherited the case, as explained in a footnote to the decision, granted Jean's motion and extended the term of her maintenance five additional years. He justified this based upon the termination of child support and the current economic circumstances of the parties. Louis appealed. In an unanimous opinion authored by Judge Patricia S. Curley, the court of appeals reversed and remanded, holding that there was no substantial change in circumstances warranting an extension of maintenance. The court concluded that it appeared that Jean's financial circumstances actually improved more than Louis's since the time of the divorce. In addition, the court concluded that cessation of child support did not constitute a substantial change of circumstances, since it was anticipated by the court at the time of the divorce that child support would end in approximately eight years. Moreover, the court noted that the money paid by Louis for child support was for the support of the child, not Jean. Lessons Learned There are several. First, the oral statements of the trial court are only important to the extent they are carried over into the written judgment. If there is a disparity between the two, as occurred here, the written judgment controls. It is possible to "lose the battle, but win the war," by drafting a...