Overson v. Overson
Property division must consider present value of installment payments.
Overson v. Overson
Denial of interest in property division affirmed where court gave sufficient reasons – no request by attorney. at trial, tremendous acquisition and appreciation of assets, liquid form of payments, where husband was left with real estate.
In Re Marriage of Brandt v. Brandt
Interest on property division from date of divorce denied where parties tried to settle issues on their own. Affirmed.
Marriage of Parrett v. Parrett
No interest on property division affirmed since payments must come from income, not established assets.
In Re Marriage of Cashin v. Cashin
Trial court has authority to impose interest on maintenance arrearages. If the court does decide to impose interest, it has discretion to determine the amount to impose.
Dickau v. Dickau
Trial court properly ordered 12% interest for disability payments not made prior to December 2, 2011 when Wis. Stat. ยง815.05(8) too effect. After that date, interest must be set per statute based on 1% plus prime.
In Re Marriage of Bjorgo v. Bjorgo
No error in not ordering interest on payment due in ten years where husband does not control the stock giving rise to the payment.
Niesen v. Niesen
Stepparent may place himself in position of parent and assume an obligation to support the child, but a good samaritan should not be saddled with the legal obligations of another.
Fuerst v. Fuerst
(1) Support for spouse’s children is a factor court can consider in property division. (2) If stepparent stood in loco parentis, support was gratuitous and will not be returned. (3) Question of in loco parentis depends on stepparent’s intent to assume obligations.
In Re Marriage of L.M.S. v. S.L.S.
In appropriate cases, child support liability can be imposed upon a nonbiological parent on the basis of equitable estoppel. Facts in this case, however, are insufficient.