CourtListener opinion 10577699

Evidence quotes

Clean opinion text

COURT OF APPEALS
 DECISION NOTICE
 DATED AND FILED This opinion is subject to further editing. If
 published, the official version will appear in
 the bound volume of the Official Reports.
 March 22, 2023
 A party may file with the Supreme Court a
 Sheila T. Reiff petition to review an adverse decision by the
 Clerk of Court of Appeals Court of Appeals. See WIS. STAT. § 808.10
 and RULE 809.62.

Appeal No. 2022AP523 Cir. Ct. No. 2020FA676

STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS
 DISTRICT II

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:

JEFFREY A. CARETTA,

 PETITIONER-APPELLANT,

 V.

DEBRA M. CARETTA,

 RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.

 APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Kenosha County:
CHAD G. KERKMAN, Judge. Reversed.

 Before Gundrum, P.J., Neubauer and Lazar, JJ.

 Per curiam opinions may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent

or authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
 No. 2022AP523

 ¶1 PER CURIAM. Jeffrey A. Caretta appeals from a circuit court
order finding him in contempt of court for his alleged failure to pay $55,000 to
Debra M. Caretta in accordance with their Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA).
The circuit court's finding of willful nonpayment was based on a legally erroneous
interpretation of the parties' agreements incorporated into the court's judgment of
divorce, which means its contempt order constituted an erroneous exercise of
discretion. We therefore reverse.

 ¶2 Jeffrey served Debra with a petition for divorce in October, 2020.
The parties stipulated to an MSA that included an "equalization of marital
property division"—a $55,000 payment from Jeffrey to Debra:

 A payment of $55,000 shall be paid from Petitioner to
 Respondent within 90 days from the date of divorce. In the
 event Petitioner fails to provide this equalization payment
 within the allotted time, Respondent may petition the court
 for an order that the marital residence be immediately put
 on the market for sale and the equalization payment coming
 from the net proceeds from the sale of the home.

The circuit court commissioner approved the MSA, signing it on March 4, 2021.
Through their attorneys, Jeffrey and Debra then negotiated and approved a
Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO) enabling Debra to receive $55,000
as a lump-sum payment from Jeffrey's retirement plan. The QDRO stated that
Debra, as the "alternate payee who is the spouse or former spouse of the [plan]
participant[,] … will be required to pay the applicable federal, state, and local
income taxes on such distributions." The circuit court signed the QDRO on
March 30. The final judgment of divorce, signed by the commissioner on
April 13, 2021, expressly incorporated the MSA by reference along with "the
Agreements and Stipulation and Order."

 2
 No. 2022AP523

 ¶3 Pursuant to the QDRO, Jeffrey transferred exactly $55,000 from his
retirement plan to a retirement account in Debra's name on April 23, 2021. On
May 5, Debra withdrew the entire balance of her account, which had dropped
slightly to $54,905.64. The plan administrator withheld $10,981.13 for federal
taxes and sent Debra a check for $43,924.51.

 ¶4 In August, 2021, Debra filed a motion seeking an order from the
circuit court finding Jeffrey "in [c]ontempt for failing to pay the equalization
payment of $55,000 within" ninety days of the date of divorce, requiring him to
"provide the remaining balance" within seven days of such a finding, and
requiring him to pay her attorney's fees for the motion. At the February 2, 2022
hearing on Debra's motion, the circuit court agreed with Debra's argument that
she had "only received $43,924.51," stating that it was "interpreting this paragraph
[in the MSA] for him to get $55,000 to her pocket and it doesn't say anything
about net 55,000 or gross 55,000 before taxes." The court excluded evidence
extrinsic to the MSA and, when Jeffrey's counsel referred to the QDRO that both
Debra's counsel and the court had approved, it stated, "I don't know anything
about this. All I know is I'm reading this paragraph [in the MSA]."1 The court
determined that Jeffrey's failure to pay the full $55,000 was intentional "because
the paragraph [in the MSA] says get $55,000 to her pocket and he didn't do that."
The court stayed its two-day jail sentence for Jeffrey, stating that he could purge
the contempt by paying the full amount within sixty days. Finally, the court

 1
 Although it was in the record, neither party provided the circuit court with a copy of the
agreed-upon QDRO, which explicitly provided that Debra was to pay the taxes on any
distribution. Nor did they advise the court of the QDRO's terms.

 3
 No. 2022AP523

awarded Debra attorney fees of $750, reducing the award from her request for
$2,000. Jeffrey appeals.

 ¶5 In actions affecting the family, the circuit court has the "authority to
do all acts and things necessary and proper in those actions and to carry … orders
and judgments into execution." WIS. STAT. § 767.01(1) (2021-22).2 This includes
the authority to find a person in contempt for intentionally disobeying an order of
the court, such as a divorce judgment. See WIS. STAT. § 785.01(1)(b); Tensfeldt v.
Haberman, 2009 WI 77, ¶35, 319 Wis. 2d 329, 768 N.W.2d 641 (stating that
violating a divorce judgment "is unlawful and can subject the violator to sanctions
for contempt of court"). When this court reviews a circuit court's contempt order,
it does so under the erroneous exercise of discretion standard. Benn v. Benn, 230
Wis. 2d 301, 308, 602 N.W.2d 65 (Ct. App. 1999). "A circuit court erroneously
exercises its discretion if it makes an error of law." Topolski v. Topolski, 2011 WI
59, ¶27, 335 Wis. 2d 327, 802 N.W.2d 482. In this case, the circuit court
exercised its discretion based on its interpretation of the parties' MSA, which had
been incorporated into the court's final judgment of divorce along with their
approved "Agreements and Stipulation and Order." Interpretation of these
documents presents a question of law, which we review de novo. See id., ¶28.

 ¶6 Thus, we begin with the judgment of divorce, which is the order
Debra alleged that Jeffrey violated in her motion for contempt. Divorce
judgments are to be construed in the same way as other written instruments, and
we consider "the whole record in construing a divorce judgment." Washington v.

 2
 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2021-22 version unless otherwise
noted.

 4
 No. 2022AP523

Washington, 2000 WI 47, ¶17, 234 Wis. 2d 689, 611 N.W.2d 261. The stipulated
MSA, incorporated into the judgment at issue here, required Jeffrey to pay Debra
$55,000. But the MSA did not explicitly require that Jeffrey's $55,000 payment to
Debra be to "her pocket" as opposed to her retirement fund. As such, the parties'
agreed-upon MSA was ambiguous. However, the parties also agreed in the
QDRO that Jeffrey would transfer $55,000 to Debra and that she would pay the
taxes on a distribution. The court approved the QDRO for this amount, which was
then incorporated into the judgment of divorce. The court's determination that the
parties' agreement set forth in the MSA unequivocally required a full $55,000
payment despite the parties' agreed-upon and court-approved QDRO constituted
legal error. See Levy v. Levy, 130 Wis. 2d 523, 533, 388 N.W.2d 170 (1986) ("In
the guise of construing a contract, courts cannot insert what has been omitted
…."), amended, 133 Wis. 2d 33, 393 N.W.2d 462 (1986). Thus, the court's
interpretation cannot be a proper basis for holding Jeffrey in contempt.

 ¶7 Indeed, the record is clear that Jeffrey did make a payment of
$55,000 to Debra; he did so by transferring that sum to her retirement account as
they both agreed in the QDRO. Debra's immediate withdrawal of that money had
tax implications (which were hers to bear, also pursuant to the QDRO). We
cannot conclude on this record that Jeffrey disobeyed the divorce judgment with
respect to the parties' agreement regarding the $55,000 payment, let alone that he
did so "intentional[ly]" as is required to hold him in contempt. See WIS. STAT.
§ 785.01(1); see also Anderson v. Anderson, 72 Wis. 2d 631, 647, 242 N.W.2d
165 (1976) ("The essential finding in such a contempt must be that the … refusal
to pay is willful and with intent to avoid payment.") (citation omitted). The circuit
court's determination that there was an intentional nonpayment because "the
[MSA] paragraph says get $55,000 to her pocket and he didn't do that" is based on

 5
 No. 2022AP523

an erroneous interpretation of the MSA and QDRO and a failure to acknowledge
that Jeffrey did pay $55,000 to Debra as detailed and agreed to in the QDRO.

 ¶8 Because the circuit court granted Debra's motion to hold Jeffrey in
contempt of court based on an erroneous interpretation of the parties' agreements,
its ruling constitutes an erroneous exercise of discretion. See Topolski, 335
Wis. 2d 327, ¶27.

 By the Court.—Order reversed.

 This opinion will not be published. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.23(1)(b)5.

 6