Kronforst v. Kronforst
Profit sharing cannot be included as a principal asset in making a division of estate and then also as an income item to be considered in awarding alimony.
Profit sharing cannot be included as a principal asset in making a division of estate and then also as an income item to be considered in awarding alimony.
(1) Maintenance based upon a percentage of payer’s income is within the discretion of the trial court. (2) Pre-UMPA maintenance order cannot be satisfied from income from assets transferred to new wife.
Court erred in failing to consider husband’s salary bonuses as part of his income stream for purposes of computing support and maintenance.
No bright line rule regarding retained earnings – court to decide on a case by case analysis whether retained earnings have to be considered income for maintenance purposes.
Court did not err by including interest and dividend income in modification proceeding where it was not included at the time of divorce, since his employment income resulted in sufficient income to satisfy the “cap” at the time of the divorce.
When the court ordered that husband pay maintenance of 25% of his gross income, “gross income” has same meaning as when computing child support and thus, includes husband’s bonus.
Trial court properly included payments to husband from covenant not to compete as part of maintenance to wife.
Trial court erred when it failed to include income from a variety of sources. The fact that a potential source of income is not currently producing income should eliminate as a source of income. The trial court is obligated to consider all sources of income. Including income from assets awarded in property division is not double counting.
Trial court’s refusal to consider stock option income for maintenance was an error of law.
Trial court erred in considering income from a spendthrift trust for maintenance where the trustee had the discretion to decline to make distributions.