McReath v. McReath
Circuit court did not double count the professional goodwill in its maintenance award since husband had the option of continuing to generate income form his orthodontic practice without diminishing its value.
In Re Marriage of Weiler v. Boerner
There is no absolute rule against double counting, so trial court did not wrongly count the value of the enhanced education benefit for the purpose of property division and maintenance.
In Re Marriage of Wettstaedt v. Wettstaedt
When an employee-spouse’s pension is divided by QDRO, and no value is assigned to either spouse’s interest to be offset by other property awarded in the property division, a family court is not prohibited by the “double-counting” rule from considering pension distributions in determining maintenance.
In Re Marriage of Hokin v. Hokin
No absolute rule against double counting. Here, the trial court properly exercised discretion in counting the monthly retirement benefits as income to the wife given the husband’s age.
In Re Marriage of Seidlitz v. Seidlitz
Court’s refusal to double count pension income awarded to wife was proper. The payments to wife represent the payout of the asset itself.
In Re Marriage of Cook v. Cook
A rule against “double-counting” does not bar consideration of a military pension both as property in the property division and as income in calculating child support.
In Re Marriage of Cook v. Cook
A rule against “double-counting” does not bar consideration of a military pension both as property in the property division and as income in calculating child support.
In Re Marriage of Olski v. Olski
Retirement benefit cannot be double counted, but increases because of post-divorce employment is available for post-divorce maintenance.
In Re Marriage of Maley
Asset and its income stream may not be counted both as an asset in the property division and as part of the payor’s income from which support is paid.
In Re Marriage of Hubert v. Hubert
Court properly exercised discretion by treating accounts receivable of husband’s medical practice as income, rather than as property. They cannot be counted as both.
In Re Marriage of Ondrasek v. Ondrasek
A\R are assets of the service corp. unless excluded by withdrawal agreement. However, double counting of A/R is error.
Johnson v. Johnson
Where the accounts receivable were viewed as salary, it would have been error to include them in the assets available for distribution.
Kronforst v. Kronforst
Profit sharing cannot be included an principal asset in making a division of estate and then also as an income item to be considered in awarding alimony.
Kim v. Kim
No error to use actual average income rather than normalized income when calculating spousal support. Doing so did not result in an “inequitable ‘double dip.’”
Palydowycz v. Palydowycz
Trial court reversed for finding that awarding wife a distributive award for value of medical practices would be double counting because the value was premised on the income stream. The appellate court found that the income stream was not “totally indistinguishable” from the asset.
Keane v. Keane
No double counting for considering rental income for maintenance, even though the valution of the income-producing property took rent into account.
Steneken v. Steneken
In a post-divorce action, it was not impermissible “double counting” to value the ex-husband’s business based on his reasonable compensation as opposed to actual compensation and then to calculate alimony based on the same excess salary that had been added back to business income, thus increasing the value of the corporate assets for which ex-wife already had received her share in equitable distribution.
Sander v. Sander
Trial court was not obligated to value company based on income used by Wife’s expert.