In Re Marriage of Modrow v. Modrow
Incarceration is a valid factor for a family court to consider in setting child support.
In Re Marriage of Finley v. Finley
Court properly exercised discretion by basing maintenance on wife’s actual earnings, rather than basing on a 40-hour work week, as this is what she had done in the past. The court also properly exercised discretion in not imputing income to husband for moonlighting where husband was working 45 hours per week.
In Re Marriage of Rottscheit v. Dumler
While a trial court can consider incarceration when as a basis for a request for a modification in child support, the fact of incarceration by itself neither mandates nor prevents modification. Incarceration is one factor to be considered, but the determination should be made on a case-by-case basis looking at the totality of the relevant circumstances.
In Re Marriage of Chen v. Warner
Standard of appellate review for shirking is that an appellate court should independently determine the issue of reasonableness, giving appropriate deference to the circuit court.
In Re Marriage of Scheuer v. Scheuer
Trial court did not err in setting maintenance based upon husband’s income before termination without expert testimony and without using the word “shirking” where his actual earnings were reduced due to his voluntary misconduct at work.
Covelli v. Covelli
Trial court’s finding of husband’s income by using wife’s testimony establishing the parties’ lifestyle, where the court found Husband’s testimony not credible.
Thistle v. Thistle
Imputation of income affirmed where payer made no attempt to advertise his handyman business and only applied for 10 jobs in one year. Where children were all in school or daycare, there was no need for a full time stay-at-home parent. (Not published, but citable)
Kanehl v. Pitel
Trial court did not have to find shirking to impute income given the flexibility of the father’s income.
Becker v. Becker
In a post-divorce action, it was not impermissible “double counting” to value the ex-husband’s business based on his reasonable compensation as opposed to actual compensation and then to calculate alimony based on the same excess salary that had been added back to business income, thus increasing the value of the corporate assets for which ex-wife already had received her share in equitable distribution.