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.
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 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.)
Marriage of Arneson v. Arneson
Where other assets far exceed the value of the pension plan, it is not unreasonable for the court to award the plan in toto to the owner as part of his or her share of the property division.
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.
In Re Marriage of Rodak v. Rodak
Pension plan which spans marriage is a marital asset, subject to division.
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 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.
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.)
Kronforst v. Kronforst
It was error for court to consider profit sharing plan as part of marital estate and also as income in determining amount of alimony.