The Wisconsin Supreme Court will answer the question of whether a court-ordered minimum on spousal maintenance is enforceable according to public policy. The question is related to case of an ex-husband who asked the court to change his alimony order after he lost his job.

According to a recent article from the State Bar of Wisconsin, the court ordered the man to pay his ex-wife $1,203 per month for no less than 33 months. After 17 months, about halfway through the term of the order, the man lost his job. He asked the court to adjust the length of the order downward so that he would not have to continue paying the maintenance.

The court denied his request and the ex-husband appealed. The appeals court, finding uncertainty in the Wisconsin law on the subject, certified the question of whether a maintenance “floor” like the one in this case is enforceable.

Under Wisconsin law, maintenance “ceilings,” or a maximum that cannot be adjusted upward as circumstances change, is not enforceable. But up to now, state courts have not conclusively addressed maintenance “floors,” which prevent downward adjustments.

State appeals courts have held that floors are against public policy if the court does not include a time limit on the floor or at least an opportunity to review whether circumstances have changed since the ruling. But in a 2007 case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court mentioned in a footnote that maintenance floors are good for public policy because they ensure that the divorced couple’s children received a certain minimum of financial support. That comment was not part of the holding of the case, so it does not have the force of law, but it may indicate the court’s thinking on the question.

Source: State Bar of Wisconsin, “Case may clarify the enforceability of child support agreements that set minimum standards,” Joe Forward, January 11, 2011