Return to wisbar.org Wisconsin Court of Appeals

April 23, 2008

To:

Hon. Anthony G. Milisauskas

Circuit Court Judge

Kenosha County Courthouse

912 56th St

Kenosha, WI 53140

 

Rebecca Matoska-Mentink

Clerk of Circuit Court

Kenosha County Courthouse

912 56th Street

Kenosha, WI 53140

 

Thomas W. Anderson Jr.

Anderson Law Office

5401- 60th St

Kenosha, WI 53144

 

Renee E. Mura

Renee E. Mura, S.C.

Ste. 220

6123 Green Bay Rd.

Kenosha, WI 53142

 

You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:

	2007AP762	Dean A. Reinke, Jr. v. Amber J. Reinke (L.C. #1996FA95)

Before Brown, C.J., Anderson, P.J., and Snyder, J.

Dean A. Reinke, Jr., appeals from the decision and order of the circuit court that determined there had been a substantial change in circumstances and modified the maintenance award from Dean to his former wife, Amber J. Reinke. We remanded the matter to the circuit court for a determination of whether its original result would have been the same in light of a finding of fact that we decided was erroneous. The circuit court explained its previous decision in a decision dated September 25, 2007. The parties then filed supplemental briefs. Based on our review of the record and briefs, we conclude at conference that this matter is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21 (2005-06). We affirm.

Dean Reinke and Amber Reinke were divorced on October 3, 1996, after a twenty-six year marriage. Under the judgment of divorce, Amber Reinke received $250 per week for a period of nine years, four-and-one-half months. That time period expired. Amber Reinke asked the court to extend the maintenance award arguing that she had undergone a substantial change in circumstances. The circuit court held a hearing and took testimony. The court found that Amber Reinke's financial circumstances had changed and that there was a substantial change in the parties' circumstances. The court stated:

The facts indicate that Amber Reinke retired prematurely because of her health issues. Amber Reinke continues to pay the mortgage on the former marital home with little equity occurring. Amber Reinke is further required to pay her own health insurance and her cost of living expenses have increased since the time of the divorce action.

The court then noted that Dean Reinke's income had decreased since the divorce was granted. The court ordered that Dean Reinke continue to pay maintenance to Amber Reinke in the amount of $100 per week.

In our remand order, we concluded that the circuit court's finding that Amber Reinke had little equity in her marital home was not supported by the record. We asked the court "to decide whether its original result would be the same in the face of its clearly erroneous finding of fact on the home equity," and to explain the reasons for its decision. The circuit court has done so. The court stated that if Amber Reinke sold the marital residence, her rent payments could be more than twice her mortgage payment. The court found that it was in Amber Reinke's best interest to remain in her current home. The court concluded that the amount of equity in the marital residence would not change its original decision to award continuing maintenance to Amber Reinke.

The court reaffirmed its previous findings and concluded that Amber Reinke needs maintenance to pay for health insurance and that she cannot support herself at the marital standard of living without the modified maintenance award. The court reaffirmed the award of maintenance in the amount of $100 per week.

The standard of review for modification of maintenance awards is somewhat complicated. The first issue to be decided is whether there is a substantial change in circumstances. See Rohde-Giovanni v. Baumgart, 2003 WI App 136, ¶5, 266 Wis. 2d 339, 667 N.W.2d 718.

We will uphold a trial court's findings regarding a change in circumstances unless they are clearly erroneous. However, whether the change is substantial is a question of law which we review de novo. But because this legal determination is intertwined with the trial court's factual findings, we nevertheless give weight to the court's decision, despite our de novo standard of review.

Murray v. Murray, 231 Wis. 2d 71, 77-78, 604 N.W.2d 912 (Ct. App. 1999) (citations omitted).

Where there has been a substantial change in circumstances, the subsequent decision whether to modify or terminate a maintenance award is within the discretion of the circuit court. We will uphold a trial court's exercise of discretion when the record shows that the court employed a process of reasoning in which the facts and applicable law are considered in arriving at a conclusion based on logic and founded on proper legal standards. We will generally look for reasons to sustain a trial court's discretionary decision.

Rohde-Giovanni, 266 Wis. 2d 339, ¶5 (citations omitted).

Dean Reinke contends that the circuit court erred because, among other things, Amber's medical condition is a direct result of her "poor health choices." This determination, however, is left to the circuit court's discretion. He further argues that the circuit court's decision on remand does not explain its original error. We disagree. We conclude, after remand, that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion when it modified the award of maintenance to Amber Reinke.

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the order of the circuit court is summarily affirmed.

David R. Schanker

Clerk of Court of Appeals