In Re Marriage of Harris v. Harris
Multiple issues. See full summary.
In Re Marriage of Erath v. Erath
(1) Increase in child support does not warrant reduction in maintenance where record does not reflect that court took child support into effect in determining maintenance award. (2) Where order of maintenance was predicated on husband being able to get a loan, inability to get loan was a substantial change in circumstances.
In Re Marriage of Nichols v. Nichols
(1) Wife estopped from seeking modification of maintenance where she stipulated in divorce judgment that maintenance would not be modifiable. (2) Stipulations prohibiting modification of maintenance are not against public policy.
In Re Marriage of Hommel v. Hommel
(1) Income from investments awarded to spouse as part of an equal property division do count towards maintenance. (2) In calculating payor’s income, interest on moneys owed in settlement should be included.
In Re Marriage of Dowd v. Dowd
Annual interest from retirement fund may be included in calculating ex-husband’s income for maintenance modification purposes. Court did not give full consideration to the support objective of maintenance by reducing maintenance to put the payor in a better position at the expense of the payee.
In Re Marriage of Gerrits v. Gerrits
Lottery proceeds may be a change in financial circumstance to be considered in modifying maintenance. However, because the purpose of maintenance is to permit payee to enjoy the same standard of living enjoyed during the marriage, court abused its discretion in determining amount of increase.
In Re Marriage of Plonka v. Plonka
Nature and amount of current income-producing assets should be freshly examined together with any new post-divorce income in modification action. Trial court must consider the reasons that form the basis for the allocation of assets in the original division of estate.
In Re Marriage of Olski v. Olski
The portion of husband’s pension benefits representing compensation for post-divorce employment and therefore not counted in the property division at divorce should be treated as an income stream for maintenance.
In Re Marriage of Haeuser v. Haeuser
Court may change maintenance only upon a positive showing of a change in circumstances. The burden rests with the party seeking the change.
In Re Marriage of Seidlitz v. Seidlitz
Trial court properly reduced, rather than terminated maintenance, where maintenance was indefinite and husband retired. Court’s adoption of equalization of income approach was proper in light of the long-term marriage of the parties.