|
COURT OF
APPEALS DECISION DATED AND
RELEASED December
19, 1996 |
NOTICE |
|
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. 96-1280
STATE OF WISCONSIN IN
COURT OF APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
IOLA
VISION,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
PAUL
VERMEERN,
Defendant-Appellant,
DAWN
MELUM,
Defendant.
APPEAL
from a judgment of the circuit court for Waupaca County: PHILIP M. KIRK, Judge. Affirmed.
VERGERONT,
J.[1] Paul
Vermeern appeals from a judgment in the amount of $329 plus costs for services
provided his minor children by Iola Vision Center. He contends that his former wife, Dawn Melum, did not comply with
the terms of their divorce judgment in incurring the costs for these services
and that venue was improper in Waupaca County.
According to Vermeern, this action should have been brought in Outagamie
County, where the divorce judgment was entered. We reject these arguments and affirm.
Iola
Vision Center filed a small claims action against Vermeern and Melum, alleging
that they owed $329 for services provided to Alecia and Paula, their minor
children. The trial court entered
judgment against both Vermeern and Melum in that amount, plus costs. The record on appeal does not contain a
transcript of the proceeding before the trial court. When the appellant does not provide a transcript, we may assume
that every fact essential to the trial court's judgment is supported by the
transcript. Austin v. Ford Motor
Co., 86 Wis.2d 628, 634, 273 N.W.2d 233, 235 (1979). We do so in this case, and assume that the
transcript would support findings that Iola Vision Center provided services to
Alecia and Paula and that $329 is a reasonable charge for those services.
Vermeern
argues that under the divorce judgment he should have been consulted by Melum
before she took the children to Iola Vision Center and, had she done so, the
costs would have been less because of his court-ordered health insurance and
"the sales promotion going on at the time." Vermeern contends he should not have to pay more than this
lesser amount ($103.50) because Melum, not he, incurred the expenses.
A
medical provider has a cause of action against both parents for medical care
provided to their minor children. See
Madison General Hospital v. Haack, 124 Wis.2d 398, 401, 369 N.W.2d
663, 664 (1985). The divorce judgment
allocates the responsibility for such expenses between the parents but does not
affect the obligation of both parents to the third party. According to Iola Vision Center's brief, the
trial court instructed both Vermeern and Melum to resolve the question of their
responsibilities under the divorce judgment before the court that entered that
judgment. That is correct. If Melum violated the terms of the judgment
in incurring the expenses or is responsible under the divorce judgment for some
or all of the expenses, Vermeern may seek a remedy by filing a motion in the
divorce action.
We
also reject Vermeern's argument that Iola Vision Center should have filed this
action in Outagamie County, where the divorce judgment was entered. The venue of the divorce does not affect the
venue of this action. Since one of the
defendants in this action, Melum, resides in Waupaca County, venue in Waupaca
County is proper. See
§ 801.50(2)(c), Stats.
By
the Court.—Judgment affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.