Rexroad v. Rexroad
Overtime pay ordinarily obtained can be considered as income to set alimony award.
In Re Marriage of Gildersleeve v. Gildersleeve
Maintenance order for no monthly maintenance, but instead a percent of any bonus failed both the support and fairness objectives. The order created an “unquestionable disparity” between the standards of living of the parties as the commission bonuses were variable and uncertain. (Not published, but citable)
Skodowski v. Skodowski
Trial court acted within its discretion in an “uncertain income” case where witnesses testimony regarding a range of income and trial court used income from prior to purchase of business.
Broderson v. Hobbins
Child support modification motion was property denied based on claim preclusion where mother had voluntarily agreed to dismiss her prior motion with prejudice.
In Re Marriage of Gibbs v. Gibbs
Holding maintenance open to wife rather than awarding maintenance affirmed after marriage of almost 30 years where parties agreed that husband would retire so the parties could do missionary work. Not published, but citeable.
In Re Marriage of Bjorgo v. Bjorgo
Courts look to taxable income when determining ability to pay child support. Therefore, Sub S distributions, including the portion used to pay tax obligations, are properly considered in determining gross income. No reason was given why the same income would not be available for maintenance.
In Re Marriage of Vassallo v. Vassallo
Maintenance award reversed as appellate court does not see a reasonable basis for a significant disparity in the parties’ income where husband would have paid wife far more than 50% of the joint income. Not published, but citeable.
In Re Marriage of Christner v. Christner
Denial of maintenance affirmed where husband’s efforts did not increase Wife’s earning capacity and did not subordinate his education or career to devote time and energy to the welfare, career or education of the other spouse or to managing the affairs of the marital partnership.
Koch v. Koch
Obligation for maintenance terminates either upon the death of the wife or upon the death of the husband.
Brin v. Brin
Hold open of maintenance was a reasonable exercise of discretion where husband had been retired for many years and wife had substantial assets.
Wheeler v. Wheeler
Consideration of criminal conduct was not prohibited as it was not related to reasons for the breakup of the marriage.
In Re Marriage of Derleth v. Cordova
Court reasonably exercised its discretion in not incorporating husband’s fringe benefits for insurance in his income for purposes of maintenance.
In Re Marriage of Eisenberg v. Eisenberg
Trial court erred in considering income from a spendthrift trust for maintenance where the trustee had the discretion to decline to make distributions.
Lemke v. Lemke
Trial court erroneously exercised discretion in terminating maintenance after three years in a 24 year marriage where the wife had significant injuries from a car accident and there was a substantial differential in income. Former wife was entitled to indefinite maintenance.
Ladwig v. Ladwig
Fifteen (15) year maintenance award in thirteen (13) year marriage affirmed as a proper exercise of discretion. Length of maintenance can exceed length of marriage.
Heppner v. Heppner
Limiting maintenance to 4 years in a nearly 34 year marriage is not consistent with Wisconsin law, even though the court found a tacit agreement during the marriage that husband would retire no later than age sixty in exchange for wife not working outside the home.
In Re Marriage of Heppner v. Heppner
Trial court’s refusal to consider stock option income for maintenance was an error of law.
In Re Marriage of Heppner v. Heppner
Multiple issues. See full summary.
Steinmann v. Steinmann
Court did not misuse its discretion in awarding ten years of maintenance in a ten year marriage by considering the “opulent lifestyle” of the parties.
Wright v. Wright
Trial court erred when it failed to include income from a variety of sources. The fact that a potential source of income is not currently producing income should eliminate as a source of income. The trial court is obligated to consider all sources of income. Including income from assets awarded in property division is not double counting.