In Re Marriage of Metz v. Keener
Denial of maintenance affirmed where court took into account the property division in a short term marriage.
Denial of maintenance affirmed where court took into account the property division in a short term marriage.
Trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by stating that a spouse has a legal right to maintenance.
Court can consider premarital cohabitation as a factor in maintenance under §767.26(9) Wis. Stats.
Court’s authority to order maintenance encompasses the authority to impose obligations on the payer to ensure compliance if the obligations are reasonably necessary. Here, trial court failed to explain how restrictions on moonlighting for free were necessary.
Trial court erred by disregarding evidence of financial benefits wife was receiving from a cohabitation relationship. Maintenance determinations should be made based on the parties’ financial circumstances at the time the determination is made, not on unfounded predictions of the future.
Unlike in DeLaMatter, in this case, wife did not refuse treatment for alcoholism. Unsuccessful treatment is not the same as refusing treatment. By reducing maintenance that did not come close providing wife with adequate support, the trial court did not give full play to the support and fairness objectives of maintenance.
Court did not misuse its discretion in awarding ten years of maintenance in a ten year marriage by considering the “opulent lifestyle” of the parties.
Limiting maintenance to 4 years in a nearly 34 year marriage is not consistent with Wisconsin law, even though the court found a tacit agreement during the marriage that husband would retire no later than age sixty in exchange for wife not working outside the home.
Consideration of criminal conduct was not prohibited as it was not related to reasons for the breakup of the marriage.
There is no bright line distinguishing between long term and short term marriages in deciding whether to award permanent alimony.