Kim Cashin

Under that provision, he and Kimberly each received one-half of William’s Christmas bonus for 1996 after taxes. The division of the 1996 bonus in this way is in keeping with basing the kid support and maintenance during the judgment only on William’s salary for 1996. Plainly, the court decided not to exclude William’s bonus for 1996 when considering his obligations to Kimberly.

To get her motion, Kimberly testified5 that she was employed and earning $33,000. There had been problems with the children, including one being expelled from school, which had forced her to put her educational plans on hold. She had signed up for three classes at Black Hawk Technical College since the divorce but didn’t complete any-she withdrew in one due to the demands of her job and another due to problems her children were having.
Distance learning through the pandemic was not a good fit for John. He didn’t like attending virtual classes and did not engage during classes. John wanted to take independent study courses instead of attending a public school. Kim caused the group home and other players on his team to determine how exactly to help him achieve success in school. Kim also taught him how exactly to speak up for what he wanted and to advocate for himself. With Kim’s efforts, he started independent study a few months ago and does well so far. Another solution to prevent getting this page in

Kimberly Ann Cashin Adress & Maps

She planned to enroll the next January in Madison Area Technical College within an accounting program also it would take her three to four years to complete the fifty-three credits for that program while working, at a cost of $300 for three credits. She wanted to then get yourself a degree in accounting from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, which may take her an additional 4-6 years as a part-time student, while continuing her job.
Cash both identifies as Jewish and was raised Jewish, but no more practices the religion, stating, “my mother is Catholic, my dad is Jewish, but I was raised Jewish in an exceedingly not strict temple….I chose, after my Bat Mitzvah not to continue”. The house information displayed here is obtained from public record information. Kimberly suggests other statutory bases for the court’s authority, but we do not address them as the arguments are not well toned and wouldn’t normally affect the result in cases like this. Before DEININGER, P.J., VERGERONT and HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ. On behalf of the respondent-appellant-cross-respondent, the reason was submitted on the briefs of Richard J. Auerbach, Auerbach & Porter, S.C., Madison. On behalf of the petitioner-respondent-cross-appellant, the cause was submitted on the brief of Jack C. Hoag, Janesville.

• He didn’t like attending virtual classes and didn’t engage during classes.
• State v. Brown, 150 Wis.2d 636, , 443 N.W.2d 19 (Ct.App.1989); State v. Lipke, 186 Wis.2d 358, , 521 N.W.2d 444 (Ct.App.1994).
• Kim is preparing to jump in when and where she is needed to advocate for each of her cases.
• There was evidence school would increase her earning capacity, and schooling would probably be necessary for her to obtain a decent standard of living.
• ¶ 10 Before examining the language of the judgment, we lay out the relevant case law.

If you don’t feel like you are doing anything, just understand that if you arrive and show interest you do more than you realize. She is grateful to become a part of CASA and is especially grateful for the guidance and support from her case supervisor, Steph. Kim has been a fantastic advocate for Kevin in court.

Standards

This raises the question of what the court intended with regards to the bonuses in future years. ¶ 16 However, the sentence on which William relies in paragraph 30 specifies that salary may be the measure of “gross income” for the maintenance part of the payment when child support is reduced because there is only 1 minor child. In addition, the total amount set for child support and maintenance during the judgment equals 25% of his “present rate of compensation of $52,200,” not 25% of most his income for 1996. While these portions of the judgment support William’s position that “gross income” means only his salary for all years after 1996, his position requires that people ignore the mention of Wis.

decision to deny an extension of maintenance as a discretionary decision, like the decision whether you will find a substantial change in circumstances. Under this standard of review, we affirm the trial court’s decision on whether you will find a substantial change in circumstances if you have an acceptable basis in the record for the trial court’s decision. Rohde-Giovanni, 269 Wis.2d 598, 676 N.W.2d 452, ¶¶ 17-18. ¶ 12 However, we’ve also recognized that construing a judgment presents a predicament distinct from construing a contract, because in the former situation the drafter of the disputed language gets the opportunity to interpret her or his own unilateral decision. Thus, although we recognized in Schultz that the question whether a judgment is ambiguous presents a question of law, which we review de novo, we also decided that a deferential standard of review was appropriate once we concluded that a judgment was ambiguous. ¶ 30 The reasoning of the court in Washington and Rotter applies in this case.

Kimberly had been from the job market for a period through the marriage by agreement of the parties also it was not likely that she would be able to equal William’s earnings in the foreseeable future. She had assisted William in his career advancement. She was in need of maintenance and William had the opportunity to pay it. ¶ 10 Before examining the language of the judgment, we lay out the relevant case law. While a written judgment that’s clear on its face is not open to construction, the trial court has the authority to construe an ambiguous judgment to effectuate the trial court’s objective. See Washington v. Washington, 2000 WI 47, ¶¶ 17, 19, 234 Wis.2d 689, 611 N.W.2d 261.