Schwab v. Schwab
Action to enforce division of retirement plan is barred by 20 year limit of Wis. Stats. §893.40. This language is mandatory and there is no exception for a family law action.
Derleth v. Cordova
Trial court reversed for not valuing the unvested portions of husband’s retirement plan where it was due to vest two weeks after the final hearing.
Johnson v. Masters
While the statute of repose under Wis. Stats. §893.40 applies in family law. However, in order to avoid absurd or unreasonable results, motion to accept a QDRO for a WRS plan should have been granted since the law changed after the divorce allowing such orders. Therefore, the statute of repose did not begin to run until the change went into effect.
Dickau v. Dickau
Wife was entitled to husband’s disability benefits where husband opted to received disability benefits in lieu of pension benefits.
In Re Marriage of Lueck v. Lueck
Court erred in dismissing contempt action under Wis. Stats. §893.02 (Statute of repose) where wife began receiving retirement benefits without paying Husband contrary to divorce judgement, even though divorce was over 20 years before. A motion and OSC does not “commence an action” under that section. (Not published, but citable.)
In Re Marriage of Kelly v. Kelly
Court of Appeals concluded the circuit court erred in not dividing Gary’s pension by dividing the monthly pension payments as property subject to the 50/50 presumption. (Not published, but citable.)
In Re Marriage of Winkler v. Winkler
Trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it declined to reopen judgement for Milwaukee County backdrop pension.
In Re Marriage of Waln v. Waln
Circuit court erred by concluding that spendthrift provision of Wis. Stat. §62.63 (4) bars it from considering City of Milwaukee pension as part of the marital estate. While the court cannot directly divide the pension, it has discretionary authority to order a payout or other orders to effectuate an equitable division of property.
In Re Marriage of Dutchin v. Dutchin
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. The court also did not erroneously exercise its discretion in treating the pension as an income stream, rather than as an asset.
Sulzer v. Diedrich
Imposition of a constructive trust is appropriate where husband died prior to retirement funds being divided, but the trust should include the investment experience on ex-wife’s portion of the retirement accounts through the date of payment.
In Re Marriage of Hokin v. Hokin
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.
In Re Marriage of Cook v. Cook
Unless otherwise excluded by law, military retired pay must be considered by the circuit court in dividing the property in a divorce proceeding.
In Re Marriage of Ably v. Ably
Trial court fairly treated pension plans by comparing monthly benefits of husband’s plan and wife’s plan, rather than finding present value of each plan.
In Re Marriage of Rodak v. Rodak
Pension plan which spans marriage is a marital asset, subject to division.
In Re Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy
When court uses QDRO to divide a pension, present value of the parties’ interests is irrelevant to the property division.
In Re Marriage of Kildea v. Kildea
General appearance is a consent to jurisdiction of court for all matters, including division of military pension.
In Re Marriage of Kennedy v. Kennedy
Where wife receives immediate payout from pension pursuant to a QDRO, the distributions are part of her share of the estate and not income to her in determining maintenance.
In Re Marriage of Olson v. Olson
Trial court erred in concluding that it could not exclude portion of husband’s pension earned prior to marriage.
Marriage of Mausing v. Mausing
Court may order that pension payments continue after death. Court may order that nonemployee’s estate or named beneficiary receive share of benefits after non-employee’s death.
Marriage of Lindsey v. Lindsey
Court can order husband to select pension payout option.