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)
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 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.
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.
Unequal division affirmed due to relatively short marriage (8 years) where husband brought substantially all of the property into the marriage.
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.
Unequal property division affirmed where husband built business.
Court can consider prior inherited status of property.
Unequal property division upheld where husband had substantial excluded property.
Sixty-forty property division affirmed in short marriage – wife suffered no “setback” due to the marriage.
Equal division of assets acquired during 11 year separation affirmed where wife raised the children, there was no separation of assets and they commingled assets.
Court may consider that one party can anticipate greater social security benefits upon retirement in ordering division of property.
A court may consider an expected gift or inheritance as one relevant factor in dividing the marital estate. Of course, the weight of a future gift or inheritance as a division factor should depend heavily upon the degree of likelihood that benefits will actually be received.”