Preview:

COURT OF APPEALS
DECISION
NOTICE
DATED AND FILED
This opinion is subject to further editing. If
published, the official version will appear in the
bound volume of the Official Reports.
December 23, 1997
A party may file with the Supreme Court a
                                                                                    Marilyn L. Graves         petition  to  review  an  adverse  decision  by  the
                                                                                    Clerk, Court of Appeals   Court of Appeals.  See § 808.10 and RULE 809.62,
                                                                                    of Wisconsin              STATS.
No.                                                                                 97-1851-FT
STATE OF WISCONSIN                                                                  IN COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT III
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:
JANNA MARIE GILBERTSON,
PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
V.
LON ADRIAN GILBERTSON,
RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.
APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for St. Croix County:
SCOTT R. NEEDHAM, Judge.   Affirmed.
Before Cane, P.J., Myse and Hoover, JJ.
MYSE, J.     Janna Marie Gilbertson appeals an order denying her
motion to revise a divorce judgment that provided for less child support than the
amount she would have received under the percentage standards established under




No. 97-1851-FT
§ 49.22(9), STATS.1   See § 767.32(2), STATS.   Janna contends that the trial court
erred by refusing her request without considering her needs, the needs of the
children, and Lon’s ability to pay; by failing to recognize a rebuttable presumption
in her favor sufficient to support a modification order; and by failing to consider
factors listed in § 767.25(1m), STATS., in the refusal to modify.   We conclude that
Janna waived these issues on appeal by not raising them before the court at the
motion hearing.   We further conclude that the trial court properly exercised its
discretion by refusing to modify the stipulated child support provisions when the
sole basis argued before the trial court was an alleged unilateral drafting mistake.
Lon and Janna entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement to settle
their divorce, placing primary physical custody of the couple’s children with Janna
and establishing Lon’s child support.   The agreement required Lon to pay twenty-
five  percent of  his net income  from Valley Guttering,  Inc.,  with  an assumed
minimum annual net of $25,000; twenty-five percent of his net income including
bonuses from Andersen Corporation; and twenty-five percent of the gross income
from his profit sharing plan at Andersen.   Janna’s counsel drafted the agreement
and all prior drafts, and the agreement was incorporated into the Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Judgment of Divorce.
Janna filed this motion to revise the agreement less than two months
afterward, claiming that her use of the word  “net” in the provision concerning
Lon’s  earned  income  and  bonuses  from  Andersen  was  both  a  typographical
mistake and a drafting error.2   Janna sought to amend the agreement to replace
1 This is an expedited appeal under RULE 809.17, STATS.
2 Janna’s motion included other claims not at issue in this appeal.
2




No. 97-1851-FT
“net” with “gross.”   Janna’s counsel argued at the hearing that the mistake was
made  because  she  practices  in  Minnesota  and  Minnesota  uses  “net”  figures,
whereas Wisconsin uses  “gross” figures, to calculate child support obligations.
Janna did not claim or introduce any evidence demonstrating a change in her
needs, the needs of her children, or Lon’s ability to pay.   Lon argued at the hearing
that he relied on the  “net income” provision in the stipulation when he made
certain specified concessions in other provisions.   The trial court dismissed that
part of Janna’s motion seeking to amend the judgment, and Janna appeals.
Janna’s sole strategy at the hearing involved an attack on the divorce
judgment  for  an  alleged  unilateral  mistake.    On  appeal,  Janna  raises  several
arguments that were not raised at the motion hearing.   This court will not address
arguments raised for the first time on appeal.   See Wirth v. Ehly, 93 Wis.2d 433,
443-44, 287 N.W.2d 140, 145-46 (1980).   We therefore limit our review to the
unilateral mistake claim.
The decision to modify child support is a discretionary one.   Burger
v. Burger, 144 Wis.2d 514, 523, 424 N.W.2d 691, 695 (1988).   Janna argues that
child support should be modified because a unilateral mistake resulted in her
drafting child support provisions calling for Lon to pay twenty-five percent of his
“net” income from wages and bonuses from Andersen Corporation instead of
twenty-five percent of his “gross” income from the same.
A unilateral drafting mistake alone is an insufficient basis to modify
child support.   The trial court found the stipulation to have been achieved through
negotiations with both parties represented by counsel.   The trial court also found
that Lon conceded other matters in the stipulation in return for the use of his “net”
earned  income  from  Andersen  in  calculating  his  child  support  obligation.
3




No. 97-1851-FT
Moreover, the trial court found the terms of the stipulation to be in the children’s
best interests.   This is a sufficient basis for the court’s exercise of its discretion.
By the Court.—Judgment affirmed.   No costs awarded.
Not recommended for publication in the official reports.
4

Download 12679.pdf

Wisconsin Law