Rexroad v. Rexroad
Overtime pay ordinarily obtained can be considered as income to set alimony award.
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.
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 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.
In Re Marriage of Heppner v. Heppner
Trial court’s refusal to consider stock option income for maintenance was an error of law.
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.
In Re Marriage of Grumbeck v. Grumbeck
Trial court properly included payments to husband from covenant not to compete as part of maintenance to wife.
In Re Marriage of Cashin v. Cashin
When the court ordered that husband pay maintenance of 25% of his gross income, “gross income” has same meaning as when computing child support and thus, includes husband’s bonus.
Dahlke v. Dahlke
Court did not err by including interest and dividend income in modification proceeding where it was not included at the time of divorce, since his employment income resulted in sufficient income to satisfy the “cap” at the time of the divorce.
Lendman v. Lendman
No bright line rule regarding retained earnings – court to decide on a case by case analysis whether retained earnings have to be considered income for maintenance purposes.
Marriage of Schinner v. Schinner
Court erred in failing to consider husband’s salary bonuses as part of his income stream for purposes of computing support and maintenance.
In Re Marriage of Poindexter
(1) Maintenance based upon a percentage of payer’s income is within the discretion of the trial court. (2) Pre-UMPA maintenance order cannot be satisfied from income from assets transferred to new wife.
Kronforst v. Kronforst
Profit sharing cannot be included as a principal asset in making a division of estate and then also as an income item to be considered in awarding alimony.
Seruya v. Seruya
Forgiveness of loan constituted a cash bonus within the definition of “net cash income.”
Stoltman v. Stoltman
Overtime pay ordinarily obtained can be considered as income to set alimony award.
In Re Marriage of Monslow
Automatic cost of living escalator affirmed. Cost of living clauses are supported by policy considerations of judicial economy and reduction in attorney fees.