In Re Marriage of Jones
Income from and increased value of discretionary trust are not marital property.
Marriage of Grohmann v. Grohmann
SS 80 defines gross income as all income from whatever source derived. If husband is obligated to report trust income as is own, then, regardless of whether he receives distributions from the trust, 17% of the trust income is payable as child support.
In Re Paternity of Lachelle A.C.
Trial court has no authority to order past support paid into trust rather than to state to recoup AFDC benefits.
In Re Paternity of Tukker
Court can set up trust in paternity action, but only for funding future support needs, if money is available now, until minority status is at an end. Trust must be jointly owned by both parents and controlled by the court. Court cannot order a “discretionary fund” which has separate components than the trust.
In Re Marriage of Grohmann v. Grohmann
Undistributed income of grantor trust is available for child support.
Mary L.O. v. Tommy R.B.
Court can order payment to trust in paternity for higher education as long as payments are made while the child is still a minor. Court may structure a trust in any manner serving the best interests of the child.
Cameron v. Cameron
Court erred when it imposed a trust on child support arrearages without the consent of the payee and without a finding that she was unable to wisely manage the money.
In Re Marriage of Eisenberg v. Eisenberg
Trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by awarding maintenance dependent on trust distributions where trusted has discretion to decline distributions. (Unpublished, but citeable.)
Bjorgo v. Bjorgo
Court affirmed for creation of trust for the children, although the court should have relied upon Wis. Stats. §767.61(4) as it was in the child’s best interests. (Unpublished, but citeable.)