Background
Julie and Raymond Kurz divorced in 2018 after a 23-year marriage. Their stipulated divorce judgment required Raymond, then a truck driver earning about $4,000 monthly, to pay Julie $900 per month in indefinite maintenance. Julie’s income consisted primarily of Social Security disability benefits.
Raymond retired at age 65 in April 2024 because of physical ailments and moved to reduce or end maintenance. Although a family court commissioner reduced the payment to $600 monthly, Raymond sought a de novo circuit-court hearing. The circuit court found retirement was a substantial change in circumstances but restored maintenance to $900 monthly after considering the statutory maintenance factors.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in declining to modify maintenance despite Raymond’s retirement. A substantial financial change permits, but does not require, a maintenance modification; the circuit court still must apply the statutory factors in light of maintenance’s support and fairness objectives.
The circuit court reasonably considered Julie’s disabilities, limited earning capacity, reliance on disability benefits, and the likelihood that a reduced payment would force her to draw more from her retirement account and lose subsidized housing. It also could consider Raymond’s underreported income and his failure to disclose current values for his house and 401(k), supporting an inference that he had greater available resources than Julie. The appellate court rejected Raymond’s request to reweigh the evidence and his unsupported assertions concerning additional Social Security benefits and a disability settlement.
Key Takeaways
- Retirement may be a substantial change in circumstances, but it does not automatically justify reducing maintenance.
- Courts deciding modification motions must consider the statutory maintenance factors and balance support with fairness to both parties.
- A payor’s incomplete financial disclosure may materially affect the court’s assessment of assets and ability to pay.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the breadth of circuit-court discretion in post-divorce maintenance modification proceedings. Even where a payor’s earned income ends at retirement, a court may preserve an existing award when the recipient remains unable to support herself and a reduction would create disproportionate hardship.
For practitioners, the case also highlights the importance of complete, current financial disclosures. Missing asset values and income discrepancies can undermine a request to reduce maintenance.