In Re Marriage of Rohde-Giovanni v. Baumgart
Multiple issues; Appellate and Supreme Court decisions. See full summary.
In Re Marriage of Cashin v. Cashin
Trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying motion to extend maintenance when it considered the purposes for awarding maintenance for five years and decided the purposes had been fulfilled because the wife’s income had increased substantially. Husband’s failure to pay ordered child support and maintenance is not a ground for extension.
In Re Marriage of Kenyon v. Kenyon
While financial changes occurred since the original maintenance order, the changes were not substantial. Termination of child support was not a substantial change, since it was anticipated that it would end and child support was not for the wife, but for the child.
In re Marriage of Jantzen
While financial changes occurred since the original maintenance order, the changes were not substantial. Termination of child support was not a substantial change, since it was anticipated that it would end and child support was not for the wife, but for the child.
Brin v. Brin
Hold open of maintenance was a reasonable exercise of discretion where husband had been retired for many years and wife had substantial assets.
Farwell v. Farwell
Child support ordered reversed because list of living expenses included wife’s personal expenses. Alimony cannot be awarded to the wife in the guise of child support.
Severson v. Severson
Commingling in budget of moneys required for wife’s support with support for the children is not appropriate, for it confuses support for the spouse with support for the children. Alimony for a divorced wife cannot be secured under an order only for support of the children.
Greco v. Greco
The rule is that alimony and child support are two different categories of support which should not be intermingled by the trial court.
In Re Marriage of Nelsen v. Candee
Trial court properly exercised its discretion in not applying guidelines in modification hearing where the support ordered was sufficient to support the children and any additional amount would have been maintenance in the guise of support.
In Re Marriage of Ayres v. Ayres
Trial court properly deviated from guidelines where it found, among other things, that such a high award would constitute hidden maintenance.