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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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)
A buy-out of a spouse’s interest in a closely held company is preferable to an in-kind distribution.
Awarding wife one-half share of husband’s controlling interest in a closely held corporation was intolerable. The arrangement would require former spouses to operate as business partners with the spouse without any real control at a distinct disadvantage.
Husband’s beatings of the wife were so several and brutal as to be egregious and entitle the wife to 10% extra in property.