Marriage of May v. May, 813 N.W.2d 179

Michael and Suzanne May were married in 1996 and had two children; the Wisconsin divorce case involved child support obligations.
In 2007 the parties entered a comprehensive stipulation and order establishing Michael's minimum child support at $1,203 per month for 33 months, unmodifiable during that period.
The stipulation also allocated parental responsibilities and costs (e.g., Suzanne assumed 100% of childcare costs; Michael’s arrears could be paid with temporary reductions due to his earnings at the time).
In 2009 Michael sought to modify his support payments; the circuit court held the 33-month floor enforceable and equitably estopped Michael from seeking modification.
The court of appeals certified the case to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for clarification on the enforceability of limited-duration unmodifiable floors and the role of estoppel and unforeseen circumstances.
The Supreme Court held the stipulation and 33-month floor enforceable, noting no unforeseen circumstances adversely affecting the children and affirming the circuit court’s estoppel ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a 33-month unmodifiable floor violates public policy	May's position; floor not per se invalid under public policy.	Opponent argues unmodifiable floors threaten the ability to modify in response to changes.	Not a per se public policy violation; enforceable within framework.
Whether equitable estoppel can preclude modification within the floor period	Estoppel should preclude modification given the stipulation and its fair terms.	estoppel may apply but depends on policy and unforeseen circumstances.	Estoppel applied; circuit court did not err in precluding modification.
Whether the duration (33 months) aligns with Wisconsin modification standards	Duration limited; intended to reduce litigation and protect children.	Duration must align with statutory presumptions and public policy; excessive duration risks rigidity.	33 months within statutory framework; not violative given lack of unforeseen adverse circumstances.

Bliwas v. Bliwas, 47 Wis. 2d 635 (Wis. 1970) (best interests central; courts may enforce stipulated child support per equitable power)
Severson v. Severson, 71 Wis. 2d 382 (Wis. 1976) (automatic reduction clauses upheld if not against best interests)
Rintelman v. Rintelman, 118 Wis. 2d 587 (Wis. 1984) (estoppel requires freely entered agreement, fair/ equitable, not illegal or policy-violative)
Ondrasek v. Tenneson, 158 Wis. 2d 690 (Ct. App. 1990) (unmodifiable ceiling invalid where precludes modification for changing needs)
Frisch v. Henrichs, 304 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 2007) (unmodifiable ceilings violate public policy; limits on litigation duration may be permissible)
Jalovec v. Jalovec, 305 Wis. 2d 467 (Wis. App. 2007) (four-year unmodifiable floor held against public policy)
Krieman v. Goldberg, 214 Wis. 2d 163 (Ct. App. 1997) (unmodifiable floor without durational limit potentially invalid per public policy)
Honore v. Honore, 149 Wis. 2d 512 (Ct. App. 1989) (three-year unmodifiable floor upheld; duration important in public policy analysis)
Wood v. Propeck, 299 Wis. 2d 470 (Wis. App. 2007) (four-year moratorium on modification invalid when it blocks needed adjustments)