In Re Marriage of Bisone v. Bisone
Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that wife’s future income would be reasonably comparable to her standard of living during the marriage. Trial court need not guarantee the same standard.
Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that wife’s future income would be reasonably comparable to her standard of living during the marriage. Trial court need not guarantee the same standard.
Trial court did not fully consider statutory factors when it did not mention wife’s ability to become self-supporting in the future. Failure to consider wife’s earning capacity was a misuse of discretion.
No error in $300 per month for 24 months maintenance award for mid-life marriage lasting relatively short time (8 years).
Contribution to child care and economic support to family represents only what a spouse is legally and morally obligated to provide: it is not a vehicle by which a party receives a “refund” for such services.
Contribution to child care and economic support to family represents only what a spouse is legally and morally obligated to provide: it is not a vehicle by which a party receives a “refund” for such services.
60-40 split of income affirmed where trial court found wife was capable of obtaining a full-time position.
No error in awarding $1,500 per month for 10 years in 23 year marriage where wife had CPA and was going to receive substantial property division award.
Trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by stating that a spouse has a legal right to maintenance.
Trial court’s denial of maintenance to wife was not unfair, given her failure to take reasonable steps to find employment during separation, the fact that she did not contribute to husband’s career and the income she can earn from employment plus retirement benefits.
Trial court affirmed in denying maintenance to husband in 39 year marriage where both spouses were employable and could attain approximately the same total income if they both chose to continue working.