State ex rel Oman v. Hunkins
Statute allowing substitution of judge in divorce after appellate court has ordered new trial or has reversed or modified the judgment or order is mandatory.
Parrish v. Kenosha County Circuit Ct.
Motion to substitute trial judge in divorce action was properly denied where appellate court did not require new trial, but required explanation from trial judge for his decision. Judge who heard the evidence and crafted the original divorce is in a better position to provide the rationale behind the order.
State ex rel. J.H. Findorff & Son, Inc. v. Milwaukee County
Liberalizes substitution on remand after appeal, but does not change Parrish holding in family law cases.
In Re Paternity of Danielle L.G.
Review by the chief judge under Wis. Stat. ยง801.58(2) is a necessary prerequisite to appeal a denial of request for substitution of judge.
Articles on Stock Options and Divorce
Articles from scholarly/legal journals on service of process and divorce.
Hopfer v. Hopfer
Unvested stock options given to husband one month before the divorce are not marital property.
In Re Marriage of Liddle v. Liddle
Reduction of stock portfolio for taxes was reasonable, as evidence supported a finding that stocks would probably be sold, as husband would be unable to make property division payments out of earned income.
In Re Marriage of Chen v. Chen
A stock option is an enforceable contract right, an economic resource comparable to other employee benefits, and thus a form of property and properly included in the marital estate.
In Re Marriage of Wikel v. Wikel
No abuse of discretion by court in ruling that only option that was exercisable as of the first day of trial would be considered part of the marital estate.
In Re Marriage of Maritato v. Maritato
Trial court has discretion to exclude non-exercisable stock options, to decline to divide underwater vested options and value the vested portion by subtracting the exercise value and taxes from the market value.