(1) Court need not consider all statutory factors in making a maintenance determination. (2) Insufficient record in this case to support more maintenance – testimony of physical ailments were not linked to a limitation on her ability to work. Also, the testimony on plans for future schooling was speculative.
Refusal by an alcoholic spouse of medically recommended treatment is a relevant factor in the court’s maintenance decision.
Premarital contributions as unmarried cohabitator is not a relevant factor on wife’s maintenance claim. Overruled in Meyer, 2000 WI 382, 239 Wis. 2d 73.
Award to wife of equity in home as her separate property does not disqualify her from maintenance.
Denial of maintenance to women who conspired to have husband killed affirmed: misconduct is not marital misconduct. Thus, trial court did not err is considering it under sub. (10)
Court properly held open maintenance to wife due to her health, but court should have specifically limited the hold open to health concerns. Expert testimony was not necessary for wife to establish health problems.
In denying maintenance to husband, the trial court properly considered that wife is required to make child support payments and provide health insurance for the minor children, as well that wife’s professional degree and successful business were made without any sacrifice from husband.
Denial of maintenance affirmed where court took into account the property division in a short term marriage.
Trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by stating that a spouse has a legal right to maintenance.
Court can consider premarital cohabitation as a factor in maintenance under ยง767.26(9) Wis. Stats.