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.
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.
In re Marriage of Jantzen
While financial changes occurred since the original maintenance order, the changes were not substantial. Termination of child support was not a substantial change, since it was anticipated that it would end and child support was not for the wife, but for the child.
In Re Marriage of Kenyon v. Kenyon
While financial changes occurred since the original maintenance order, the changes were not substantial. Termination of child support was not a substantial change, since it was anticipated that it would end and child support was not for the wife, but for the child.
In Re Marriage of Cashin v. Cashin
Trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying motion to extend maintenance when it considered the purposes for awarding maintenance for five years and decided the purposes had been fulfilled because the wife’s income had increased substantially. Husband’s failure to pay ordered child support and maintenance is not a ground for extension.
In Re Marriage of Rohde-Giovanni v. Baumgart
Multiple issues; Appellate and Supreme Court decisions. See full summary.
Dahlke v. Dahlke
A substantial change in circumstances envisions a circumstance in which it would be unjust or inequitable to strictly hold an obligor to the judgment.
In Re Marriage of Wettstaedt v. Wettstaedt
A substantial change in circumstances envisions a circumstance in which it would be unjust or inequitable to strictly hold an obligor to the judgment.
In Re Marriage of Patrickus v. Patrickus
A settlement agreement which allows for maintenance to be modified only for increases violated public policy. Wife would only get increases without sharing in the risk and, unlike a stipulation which has a nonmodifiable fixed amount or term, this one-sided agreement invites litigation.
In Re Marriage of Murray v. Murray
Limited term maintenance has various purposes. In this case, it was designed to limit the responsibility of the payor.
In Re Marriage of Benn v. Benn
Reduction rather than termination of maintenance was an appropriate exercise of discretion where husband had attempted to avoid paying support by over withholding from his wages. However, court cannot condition modification on payment of arrears.
In Re Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson
Trial court did not err by setting maintenance above 50% of total household income at the time of the divorce. While it is reasonable to consider an equal division of income as a starting point, the trial is not mandated to do so.
In Re Marriage of Rosplock v. Rosplock
Multiple issues. See summary.
In Re Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson
Court erred in increasing maintenance when it concluded that the starting point was an equal division of income. The fairness objective does not apply to a post-divorce situation, as maintenance is not to be viewed as a permanent annuity.
In Re Marriage of Seidlitz v. Seidlitz
Trial court properly reduced, rather than terminated maintenance, where maintenance was indefinite and husband retired. Court’s adoption of equalization of income approach was proper in light of the long-term marriage of the parties.
In Re Marriage of Haeuser v. Haeuser
Court may change maintenance only upon a positive showing of a change in circumstances. The burden rests with the party seeking the change.
In Re Marriage of Olski v. Olski
The portion of husband’s pension benefits representing compensation for post-divorce employment and therefore not counted in the property division at divorce should be treated as an income stream for maintenance.
In Re Marriage of Plonka v. Plonka
Nature and amount of current income-producing assets should be freshly examined together with any new post-divorce income in modification action. Trial court must consider the reasons that form the basis for the allocation of assets in the original division of estate.
In Re Marriage of Gerrits v. Gerrits
Lottery proceeds may be a change in financial circumstance to be considered in modifying maintenance. However, because the purpose of maintenance is to permit payee to enjoy the same standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, court abused its discretion in determining amount of increase.
In Re Marriage of Dowd v. Dowd
Annual interest from retirement fund may be included in calculating ex-husband’s income for maintenance modification purposes. Court did not give full consideration to the support objective of maintenance by reducing maintenance to put the payor in a better position at the expense of the payee.