Category Archives: Value

In Re Marriage of Preiss v. Preiss

Trial court properly found that special circumstances warranted valuing pension at date husband began receiving payments, rather than date of divorce, when husband retired and stopped paying wife contrary to court order.

Year: 2000 | State: WI

In Re Marriage of Siker v. Siker

Trial court did not err in finding that the prior stock sale between brothers, governed by the shareholder’s agreement, was not indicative of the value of the stock. The buy-out agreement did not replicate an arm’s length transaction.

Year: 1999 | State: WI

In Re Marriage of Long v. Long

Trial court affirmed for valuing checking account on date of separation even without finding of waste. Trial court applied “special circumstances” exception to valuation date rule due to husband’s spending during the divorce.

Year: 1995 | State: WI

In Re Marriage of Preuss v. Preuss

Trial court erred in using appraised valuation of cattle herd, where value had diminished since date of appraisal and date of trial due to death and sale of cattle.

Year: 1995 | State: WI

In Re Marriage of Wikel v. Wikel

Special circumstances warranted deviation from date of trial valuation rule due to five-month delay between trial dates and additional delay before judgment was entered.

Year: 1992 | State: WI

In Re Marriage of Sommerfield

Special circumstances allowed deviation from usual rule that estate is valued as of date of divorce where husband prepared for trial which was adjourned due to wife’s desire to reconcile.

Year: 1990 | State: WI

In Re Marriage of Rodak v. Rodak

Trial court affirmed where valuing car at a “middle value.” The court did not improperly average the values submitted – rather the court considered the purchase price and restoration efforts.

Year: 1989 | State: WI

In Re Marriage of Brandt v. Brandt

Four and one-half year period between date of divorce and court’s final decision does not constitute the special circumstances warranting deviation from usual rule that assets are valued as of date of divorce. The “special circumstances” rule applies to conditions over which the parties have little or no control. Here a party’s own conduct contributed to the delay.

Year: 1988 | State: WI

Marriage of Schinner v. Schinner

(1) Fair market value is proper method of valuing property. (2) Owner is competent to give opinion evidence as to value of his own property.

Year: 1988 | State: WI

In Re Marriage of Liddle v. Liddle

Fair market value requires consideration of what factors buyers and sellers find relevant when negotiating a deal. Disadvantages or liabilities of ownership may dramatically affect the fair market value.

Year: 1987 | State: WI

Overson v. Overson

Assets are valued at time of divorce – not at time of separation, including all assets acquired during the 11 years which the divorce was pending.

Year: 1985 | State: WI

Darcel v. Manitowoc Review Bd.

Arm’s-length sale price is best indicator to determine fair market value for property tax purposes and approach that considers other factors is error as matter of law.

Year: 1985 | State: WI

Marriage of Arneson v. Arneson

Special circumstances can warrant deviation from the general rule that the assets of a marriage are to be valued and divided as of the date of the divorce.

Year: 1984 | State: WI

Poncek v. Poncek

Trial court was authorized to accept wife’s appraisal because it was part of her financial disclosure statement.

Year: 1984 | State: WI

In Re Marriage of Thorpe v. Thorpe

Where court accepted value of party as estimated in F.D. over testimony of qualified expert, the court must give an explanation.

Year: 1982 | State: WI

Corliss v. Corliss

(1) Fair market value is proper method of valuing property for purposes of divorce; (2) Depreciation is deductible partly because some assets do not last forever and must be replaced. No abuse of discretion for valuing equipment according to book value, or its ability to generate tax deductions.

Year: 1982 | State: WI

Holbrook v. Holbrook

(1) Assets of the marital estate are valued as of the date the divorce is granted. (2) Uncontradicted testimony as to the existence of some fact or the happening of some event cannot be disregarded by a court or jury.

Year: 1981 | State: WI