support order

Isaac Boggs began working for South Central Bell in 1949 and remained employed until his retirement in 1985. He was married to Dorothy Boggs from 1949 until her death in 1979, and the couple had three sons. After Dorothy died, Isaac married Sandra Boggs in 1980, and they remained married until Isaac's death in 1989. Upon retirement, Isaac received a lump-sum distribution of $151,628.94 from the Bell System Savings Plan, which he rolled over into an Individual Retirement Account worth $180,778.05 at his death. He also received 96 shares of AT&T stock from the Bell South Employee Stock Ownership Plan and a monthly annuity of $1,777.67 from the Bell South Service Retirement Program. Dorothy's will bequeathed one-third of her estate to Isaac outright along with a lifetime usufruct in the remaining two-thirds, with naked ownership passing to the sons. A 1980 Louisiana judgment of possession ascribed to Dorothy's estate a community property interest in Isaac's Savings Plan account valued at $21,194.29. After Isaac's death, Sandra began receiving a survivor annuity and other benefits. The sons filed suit in Louisiana state court claiming a portion of the retirement benefits under Dorothy's will and Louisiana community property law. Sandra then filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana asserting that ERISA preempts the sons' claims. The District Court granted summary judgment against Sandra. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In January 1972 a paternity action was instituted against Roger G. Redhail in Milwaukee County Court alleging that he was the father of a baby girl born out of wedlock on July 5, 1971. After Redhail admitted paternity the court entered an order on May 12, 1972 adjudging him the father and ordering him to pay $109 per month as support until the child reached age eighteen. From May 1972 until August 1974 Redhail was unemployed and indigent and consequently was unable to make any support payments. As of December 1974 there was an arrearage in excess of $3,700. The child had been a public charge since her birth receiving benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. In September 1974 Redhail applied for a marriage license in Milwaukee County. County Clerk Thomas E. Zablocki denied the application because Redhail had not obtained a court order pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 245.10(1). Redhail would not have been able to satisfy either statutory prerequisite for permission to marry. After the license denial Redhail filed a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The complaint alleged that the statute violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. A three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284. The plaintiff class was certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). After the parties filed a stipulation of facts and briefs were submitted the three-judge court held the statute unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and enjoined its enforcement. Zablocki brought a direct appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1253. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and affirmed the District Court judgment.

Robert Lalli claims to be the illegitimate son of Mario Lalli, who died intestate on January 7, 1973, in New York. Robert’s mother, who died in 1968, was never married to Mario. After Mario’s widow, Rosamond Lalli, was appointed administratrix of the estate, Robert and his sister Maureen petitioned the Surrogate’s Court for Westchester County for a compulsory accounting, asserting their entitlement to inherit as Mario’s children. Rosamond Lalli opposed the petition. She argued that Robert and Maureen had not obtained an order of filiation during Mario’s lifetime as required by New York Estates, Powers, and Trusts Law § 4-1.2. Robert conceded the absence of such an order. He presented evidence. This included a notarized document in which Mario referred to him as “my son” when consenting to his marriage. There were also affidavits from individuals stating that Mario had openly acknowledged Robert and Maureen as his children. The Surrogate’s Court ruled that Robert and Maureen were excluded as distributees. On direct appeal, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. While the case was pending before the United States Supreme Court, the Court decided Trimble v. Gordon and vacated and remanded for further consideration. On remand, the New York Court of Appeals adhered to its prior disposition. The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and heard the case.

Sharon Brown and Sheldon Brown married in 1984 and had one child, who is still a minor. They were divorced in 1987, and Sheldon was required to pay 17% of his gross income for child support pursuant to the general percentage standards in § HSS 80. Sheldon remarried and has three minor children from his second marriage. His second marriage is still intact. Sheldon brought a motion under sec. 767.32, Stats., to modify his child support due to the fact that he has minor children in his second family. He requested that the court utilize § HSS 80.04(1), the "serial family payer" provisions of the percentage standards in resetting his child support obligation for his first child. The family court commissioner determined that the "serial family payer" provisions did not apply and refused to modify the existing support order. Sheldon appealed to the circuit court, which ruled that the "serial family payer" provisions applied to Sheldon. It therefore reduced his child support obligation from 17% to 12.1%. Sharon appeals that order.