|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED JULY 25, 1995 |
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. 95-0352-FT
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT III
In re the Paternity of
Megan M. M.:
STATE OF WISCONSIN
EX REL. CHRISTINE M.,
Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
GLENN D. B.,
Respondent-Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of
the circuit court for Forest County: ROBERT A. KENNEDY, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded.
LaROCQUE, J. Glenn D.B. appeals an order applying a
$1,000 cash bail bond toward delinquent child support.[1] The bond was posted by Glenn's brother
following his arrest on a bench warrant for failing to appear at a support
hearing arising out of a paternity judgment. Glenn maintains that there is no authority to apply the bond to
child support arrears. This court
agrees and reverses and remands for further proceedings.
The State contends that
the court has inherent authority to apply the bond money to child support. It cites no authority for its contention,
other than to concede that although the power to punish for contempt is
inherent, the penalties prescribed may be limited by statute, citing State
ex rel. Lanning v. Lonsdale, 48 Wis. 348, 4 N.W. 390 (1880).
If the court sets
conditions of bond, the bond may be forfeited for any noncompliance with the
conditions set for release. State
v. Badzmierowski, 171 Wis.2d 260, 263, 490 N.W.2d 784, 785 (Ct. App.
1992). Thus, forfeiture is not limited
for failure to appear: Where the
subject disobeys any condition of the bond, the court may order a bail
forfeiture. Id.
The State does not
contend that the bond in this case included a condition that Glenn pay child
support. Neither the bond itself nor a
transcript of the proceedings is in the appellate record. The court's order applying the bond to child
support is silent as to the matter.
Because the record fails
to support a showing that the bond was forfeited pursuant to § 969.13(1), Stats., this court need not address
issues raised relating to whether a forfeiture may be applied to child support
or the alleged failure to notify Glenn of the consequences of failing to meet
the conditions of a bond. The order is
reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion.
By the Court.—Order
reversed and cause remanded.
This opinion will not be
published. Rule 809.23(1)(b)4, Stats.