Patricia A. Johnson v. Michael R. Masters
830 N.W.2d 647
Wis.2013Background
- Divorce judgment between Masters and Johnson was entered July 20, 1989; it required a QDRO to divide Masters' Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) benefits.
- At that time (1989), Wisconsin law did not authorize the WRS to accept QDROs linking to divorces; no mechanism existed to divide WRS benefits via a QDRO.
- Legislation authorizing WRS to accept QDROs for divorces varied over time, with a key change effective May 2, 1998 enabling such orders for relevant divorces.
- The divorce judgment included a Marital Agreement clause stating Johnson would receive half the value of Masters' WRS benefits and that a QDRO would be submitted to secure these rights.
- Masters retired in April 2009; Johnson sought pension information in 2010 to prepare a QDRO, but Masters refused to authorize release of information.
- The circuit court dismissed Johnson’s 2010 motion as barred by Wis. Stat. § 893.40 (20-year statute of repose), and Johnson appealed; the court of appeals certified the question to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 893.40 bar Johnson's 2010 QDRO-related action? | Johnson argues the action is not 'action upon a judgment' under § 893.40 because a QDRO could not be performed when the judgment was entered. | Masters argues the statute is unambiguous and bars any post-judgment action within 20 years, with no family-law exemption. | Not barred; statute applied in a way to avoid absurd results given later changes permitting QDROs. |
| Did Hamilton v. Hamilton control the outcome here? | Hamilton governs post-judgment actions to collect under judgments and supports a broader reading of 'action'. | Hamilton controls; a broad application of § 893.40 bars post-judgment actions, as in child-support contexts. | Hamilton is not controlling here due to the unique WRS statutory change allowing QDROs; the majority adopts a remedial construction. |
| Should equitable estoppel or related doctrines save Johnson's claim? | Equitable estoppel or unclean hands preclude Masters' repose defense given his 1989 assurances and continued obligations. | No basis to defeat the repose statute; equitable doctrines do not override § 893.40 absent express legislative authorization. | Equitable estoppel supports relief; the court reverses and remands to proceed consistent with the opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamilton v. Hamilton, 261 Wis. 2d 458, 661 N.W.2d 832 (2003) (Wis. 2003) (statute of repose governs time to enforce judgments; discussion of 20-year limit and its application)
- Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 271 Wis.2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (2004) (Wis. 2004) (guidance on statutory interpretation and avoiding absurd results)
- State v. Szulczewski, 216 Wis.2d 495, 574 N.W.2d 660 (1998) (Wis. 1998) (interpretation of statutory language and harmonizing conflicting provisions)
- Aicher v. Wis. Patients Comp. Fund, Wis. 2000 (Wis. 2000) (statutory interpretation and remedies; broader context for exceptions and equity)
- Teschendorf v. State Farm Ins. Cos., 261 Wis. 2d 123, 717 N.W.2d 258 (2006) (Wis. 2006) (absurd-result exception and statutory interpretation in context of open-ended obligations)