In Re Marriage of Grumbeck v. Grumbeck
Trial court properly included payments to husband from covenant not to compete as part of maintenance to wife.
Wright v. Wright
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.
In Re Marriage of Heppner v. Heppner
Trial court’s refusal to consider stock option income for maintenance was an error of law.
In Re Marriage of Eisenberg v. Eisenberg
Trial court erred in considering income from a spendthrift trust for maintenance where the trustee had the discretion to decline to make distributions.
In Re Marriage of Derleth v. Cordova
Court reasonably exercised its discretion in not incorporating husband’s fringe benefits for insurance in his income for purposes of maintenance.
In Re Marriage of Bjorgo v. Bjorgo
Courts look to taxable income when determining ability to pay child support. Therefore, Sub S distributions, including the portion used to pay tax obligations, are properly considered in determining gross income. No reason was given why the same income would not be available for maintenance.