Background
Matthew and Pamela Braaksma divorced in 2017 after a 19-year marriage. They agreed to hold maintenance open for eight years, extending beyond the anticipated end of Matthew’s child-support obligation. Pamela sought maintenance in January 2025 after child-support payments had stopped.
At the maintenance hearing, both attorneys agreed that the material facts were largely undisputed and that they could proceed through counsel’s factual presentations and arguments, with testimony available if a dispute arose. Neither party requested testimony. The circuit court found that Pamela had primarily cared for the parties’ children, had limited earning potential, and continued supporting their two adult children. It awarded her indefinite maintenance of $2,500 per month.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Matthew forfeited—and affirmatively invited any error concerning—the procedure used at the hearing because he expressly agreed that the court could rely on counsel’s statements of undisputed facts. The presentations were not statutory “offers of proof” concerning excluded evidence; they were facts accepted by agreement of the parties.
The court also upheld the circuit court’s inferences that Pamela’s primary caregiving responsibilities had limited her employment opportunities and earning capacity. Although the circuit court incorrectly stated that Matthew spent $3,100 per month on a vacation property, rather than $541, the mistake was harmless because it did not affect the maintenance award.
Finally, the circuit court reasonably applied the relevant maintenance factors and the objectives of support and fairness. It was not required to address statutory factors that were irrelevant, and its consideration of the long marriage, Pamela’s earning capacity and standard of living, her caregiving sacrifices, and the parties’ differing expenditures adequately supported the award.
Key Takeaways
- A party who agrees that a court may decide a maintenance motion using counsel’s undisputed factual presentations cannot later challenge that procedure on appeal.
- A circuit court need address only the statutory maintenance factors relevant to the case, but its reasoning must connect those factors to the support and fairness objectives.
- An unsupported factual finding does not warrant reversal when there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the outcome.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the importance of objecting at the hearing when counsel disputes the procedure or facts on which a maintenance ruling will rest. Expressly approving an abbreviated presentation may both forfeit the issue and constitute invited error.
It also confirms that Wisconsin courts have discretion to consider a spouse’s caregiving-related earning limitations and voluntary support of adult children when evaluating maintenance, provided the court applies the relevant statutory framework and reaches a reasonable result.