In Re Marriage of Rosplock v. Rosplock
Multiple issues. See summary.
In Re Marriage of Johnson v. Johnson
Trial court did not err by setting maintenance above 50% of total household income at the time of the divorce. While it is reasonable to consider an equal division of income as a starting point, the trial is not mandated to do so.
In Re Marriage of Benn v. Benn
Reduction rather than termination of maintenance was an appropriate exercise of discretion where husband had attempted to avoid paying support by over withholding from his wages. However, court cannot condition modification on payment of arrears.
In Re Marriage of Murray v. Murray
Limited term maintenance has various purposes. In this case, it was designed to limit the responsibility of the payor.
In Re Marriage of Patrickus v. Patrickus
A settlement agreement which allows for maintenance to be modified only for increases violated public policy. Wife would only get increases without sharing in the risk and, unlike a stipulation which has a nonmodifiable fixed amount or term, this one-sided agreement invites litigation.
In Re Marriage of Wettstaedt v. Wettstaedt
A substantial change in circumstances envisions a circumstance in which it would be unjust or inequitable to strictly hold an obligor to the judgment.
Dahlke v. Dahlke
A substantial change in circumstances envisions a circumstance in which it would be unjust or inequitable to strictly hold an obligor to the judgment.
In Re Marriage of Rohde-Giovanni v. Baumgart
Multiple issues; Appellate and Supreme Court decisions. See full summary.
In Re Marriage of Cashin v. Cashin
Trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying motion to extend maintenance when it considered the purposes for awarding maintenance for five years and decided the purposes had been fulfilled because the wife’s income had increased substantially. Husband’s failure to pay ordered child support and maintenance is not a ground for extension.
In Re Marriage of Kenyon v. Kenyon
While financial changes occurred since the original maintenance order, the changes were not substantial. Termination of child support was not a substantial change, since it was anticipated that it would end and child support was not for the wife, but for the child.