Zirngibl v. Zirngibl
Award to wife of equity in home as her separate property does not disqualify her from maintenance.
In Re Marriage of Brabec v. Brabec
Denial of maintenance to women who conspired to have husband killed affirmed: misconduct is not marital misconduct. Thus, trial court did not err is considering it under sub. (10)
In Re Marriage of Grace v. Grace
Court properly held open maintenance to wife due to her health, but court should have specifically limited the hold open to health concerns. Expert testimony was not necessary for wife to establish health problems.
In Matter of Marriage of Sellers v. Sellers
In denying maintenance to husband, the trial court properly considered that wife is required to make child support payments and provide health insurance for the minor children, as well that wife’s professional degree and successful business were made without any sacrifice from husband.
In Re Marriage of Metz v. Keener
Denial of maintenance affirmed where court took into account the property division in a short term marriage.
In Re Marriage of King v. King
Trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by stating that a spouse has a legal right to maintenance.
In Re Marriage of Meyer v. Meyer
Court can consider premarital cohabitation as a factor in maintenance under §767.26(9) Wis. Stats.
In Re Marriage of Finley v. Finley
Court’s authority to order maintenance encompasses the authority to impose obligations on the payer to ensure compliance if the obligations are reasonably necessary. Here, trial court failed to explain how restrictions on moonlighting for free were necessary.
In Re Marriage of Woodard v. Woodard
Trial court erred by disregarding evidence of financial benefits wife was receiving from a cohabitation relationship. Maintenance determinations should be made based on the parties’ financial circumstances at the time the determination is made, not on unfounded predictions of the future.
In Re Marriage of Hacker v. Hacker
Unlike in DeLaMatter, in this case, wife did not refuse treatment for alcoholism. Unsuccessful treatment is not the same as refusing treatment. By reducing maintenance that did not come close providing wife with adequate support, the trial court did not give full play to the support and fairness objectives of maintenance.