Kathleen Stavlo v. Francisco Saa

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED NOTICE October 17, 1996 A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. See § 808.10 and RULE 809.62, STATS. This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. No. 95-0754 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IV In re the Marriage of: KATHLEEN STAVLO, f/k/a Kathleen Saa, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FRANCISCO SAA, Respondent-Respondent. APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Dane County: P. CHARLES JONES, Judge. Affirmed. Before Vergeront, J., Paul C. Gartzke and Robert D. Sundby, Reserve Judges. PER CURIAM. Kathleen Stavlo appeals from an order denying her motion for a retroactive increase in child support. The issue is whether this court is empowered to create a policy exception to § 767.32(1m), STATS., to award a retroactive increase in child support. We are not empowered to create No. 95-0754 an exception to § 767.32(1m), which precludes a retroactive modification of child support unless it is to correct a previous error in calculation. Therefore, we affirm. The trial court applied the proper legal standards to the relevant facts and reached the correct decision. Therefore, we incorporate the trial court's memorandum decision and affirm its order. See WIS. CT. APP. IOP VI(5)(A) (June 13, 1994) (court of appeals may adopt the trial court's opinion). By the Court. Order affirmed. This opinion will not be published. See RULE 809.23(1)(b)5, STATS. -2- No. 95-0754 AN EXHIBIT HAS BEEN ATTACHED TO THIS OPINION. THE EXHIBIT CAN BE OBTAINED UNDER SEPARATE COVER BY CONTACTING THE WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS. COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN 110 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 715, POST OFFICE BOX 1688 MADISON, WISCONSIN 53703-1688 TELEPHONE: (608) 266-1880 FAX: (608) 267-0640 Marilyn L. Graves, Clerk Court of Appeals

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.