Trial court affirmed for providing husband with ten years, without interest, for paying wife for her interest in his employer’s stock where he could not sell or transfer the stock per the shareholder’s agreement. (Not published, but citeable)
Unequal division of marital estate affirmed. Criminal activity clearly did not have anything to do with the break-up of the parties’ marriage and was therefore not marital misconduct prohibited from consideration. (Not published, but citable)
The court did not have to consider the tax consequences of husband’s withdrawal from his IRA to make the equalization payment since it was anticipated that he would sell or refinance the homestead. Husband’s choice to raise funds through a method which resulted in a penalty is his erroneous exercise of discretion, not the court’s.
Though a circuit court may consider substantial gifted assets when dividing the marital estate, it may not divide the marital estate to work a de facto splitting of those assets when there is no hardship.
Trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion by finding education debt was not marital and assigning it solely to wife, due to the enhanced education benefit.
Trial court did not err by treating husband’s sick leave account as an “other economic circumstance” justifying an unequal division of estate. Account had uncertain value, similar to an unvested stock option. While under Preiss, it cannot be divided because it does not have a fair market value, the court can still use it as a background consideration in determining an equitable property division.
While survivorship benefit is an asset, the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion by determining that it would be unfair to divide it equally where the underlying pension was treated as an income stream rather than as an asset. Trial courts have a broad discretion in attempting to fashion the most equitable and fair result.
Trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in not deviating from equal division of property due to husband’s contribution of $12,000 to the residence and a gift parcel of land. Trial court appropriately considered the length of the marriage (15 years) and wife’s role in raising husband’s children from a prior marriage.
Trial court properly found that wife’s student loans (much of which were premarital) were included in the marital estate. The marital estate includes all assets and debts acquired during or before marriage unless specifically exempted by statute.
Trial court erred in deviating from an unequal division of the largest asset in the marital estate upon consideration of only one statutory factor, neglecting entirely the other statutory factors.
Trial court properly delayed equalization payment from wife until after husband gets out of jail. Trial court also properly provided for a dollar-for-dollar offset of child support against property division payments.
Trial court properly charged husband with value of bank account where he withdrew funds, claiming legitimate household purposes. Court found he had funds to cover these expenses and that wife had similar expenses.
Trial court must include insurance company termination benefits, despite their speculative nature. Trial court can choose, per Bloomer, a method of valuation, but should not hold open division until termination. Prolonging asset division does not promote judicial administration and it is not in the parties’ best interests to drag out the divorce.
Use of a coverture fraction to divide a retirement plan may be appropriate, but not in this case because the trial court considered the husband’s financial contributions to be greater than the wife’s contributions as homemaker and primary child caretaker.
Unequal division of property (75 – 25 in favor of wife) affirmed where wife brought some property into marriage and trial court concluded that husband had not been economically disadvantaged as a result of the marriage.
Post-divorce income is not marital property under WI Stats §767.255.
Unequal division affirmed due to relatively short marriage (8 years) where husband brought substantially all of the property into the marriage.
Premarital property is subject to division.
Unequal division of property affirmed. Wife made more than husband. Court awarded husband his retirement in lieu of maintenance from wife. This was a proper exercise of discretion.
(1) Pension plan which spans date of marriage is a marital asset, subject to division. The premarital component is a factor which may be relevant to how the asset should be divided, not whether it should be. (2) Equal property division affirmed in 13 year marriage where husband brought substantial property into marriage.