Brad Michael L. v. Lee D.
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
564 N.W.2d 354 (1997)
- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
Catherine L. gave birth to a son, Brad Michael L. (plaintiff), in 1977. Catherine was not married and did not seek to establish paternity. However, when Brad was 15 years old, Catherine realized she would not be able to pay for Brad’s college expenses. Catherine then contacted Brad’s father, Lee D. (defendant), who had no knowledge of Brad’s birth or existence, and asked if he would place his name on Brad’s birth certificate. Lee did not respond. Catherine was barred by a statute of limitations from bringing a paternity action. However, Catherine learned that Brad could bring a paternity action. Blood tests confirmed that Lee was Brad’s father. Lee was married with two children and was a successful farmer and logger. A trial court ordered Lee to begin paying $500 per month in child support but did not order Lee to pay any past child support. The court felt that applying Wisconsin’s child-support law to Lee in relation to back child support would transgress the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution and would not be fair to Lee, who was not notified of Brad’s existence for 15 years and did not have the chance to build a relationship with his son.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schudson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
