(1) Reversed for trial court to explain reasons for its division of property. (2) Property disposed of within one year of divorce petition is presumed to be marital property. (3) Source of assets is a consideration, but premarital property is not automatically excluded.
(1) Maintenance and property division are inter-dependant. (2) Law firm buy-out is a property division asset, not income, since it can be presently valued.
When installment payments are awarded to one party in a divorce, interest is appropriate.
(1) Court gave due consideration to husband’s costs and tax considerations in making property division. (2) Court abused its discretion by using its own figure of 15% as a tax reduction on retirement plans, thus ignoring uncontradicted expert opinion.
Sometimes an asset can be used for property division or support, but not both. No error by trial court, then, by ordering that bonus would be divided, but not considered as a change in circumstances for maintenance increase.
(1) Once trial court uses QDRO to divide pension, present value is irrelevant to the property division. No unfairness to husband that wife can beg In Receiving immediate benefits, while he is not presently eligible. He could be eligible if he chose to retire. (2) Pension pay-out is distribution of estate and is not calculated into maintenance equation.
Needs are a proper consideration in property division.
Court has discretionary authority to order security for future property division payments.
Premarital property is subject to division.
Post-divorce income is not marital property under WI Stats ยง767.255.