Summary
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that a wife's obligation for her former husband's necessary medical expenses was a support obligation under Wisconsin law. Accordingly, the hospital could satisfy its judgment from all marital property and all other property of the obligated spouse, and the divorce-related limitation restricting recovery to marital assets assigned to the wife was invalid. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Forest's medical expenses constituted a support obligation under Wis. Stat. § 766.55(2)(a), rather than an obligation incurred in the interest of the marriage or family under § 766.55(2)(b).
- Whether the presumption in Wis. Stat. § 766.55(1) applies to a spouse's support obligation under § 766.55(2)(a).
- Whether the judgment could limit St. Marys to marital property assigned to Cynthia at the time of the divorce.
Holdings
- Necessary medical expenses incurred by one spouse during marriage constitute an obligation to satisfy a duty of support under Wis. Stat. § 766.55(2)(a), not an obligation incurred in the interest of the marriage or family under § 766.55(2)(b).
- The presumption in Wis. Stat. § 766.55(1) does not apply to the support-obligation category in § 766.55(2)(a); it applies to the categories in § 766.55(2)(b) through (d), which concern obligations 'incurred' by a spouse.
- Because Cynthia's obligation was a support obligation under § 766.55(2)(a), St. Marys could satisfy its judgment from all marital property and all other property of Cynthia; the judgment could not limit collection to the marital assets assigned to her at divorce.
Key quotations
“The presumption does not apply to the support obligation category, § 766.55(2)(a).” (111)
“We conclude that the trial court erred when it inserted the limitation in the judgment that St. Marys may only satisfy the amount of the judgment out of the marital assets assigned to Cynthia to the extent of the value of the marital property at the date of her divorce.” (113)
Factual background
Forest and Cynthia Brody married in 1981, and St. Marys provided medical services to Forest in March 1990. The couple divorced in November 1990, and their divorce judgment assigned Forest responsibility for the medical balance. St. Marys later sued both spouses; Forest defaulted, and the trial court entered summary judgment against Cynthia while limiting collection against her to marital assets assigned at divorce.
Procedural history
St. Marys provided medical services to Forest Brody during his marriage to Cynthia. After the Brodys divorced, the divorce judgment assigned Forest responsibility for the medical debt. St. Marys obtained a default judgment against Forest and summary judgment against Cynthia. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed Cynthia's liability but reversed the limitation on the property available to satisfy the judgment and remanded.
Remand instructions
Remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including removal of the limitation restricting satisfaction to marital assets assigned to Cynthia at divorce.