In Re Marriage of Forester v. Forester
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.
In Re Marriage of Prosser v. Cook
No error in $300 per month for 24 months maintenance award for mid-life marriage lasting relatively short time (8 years).
In Re Marriage of Olson v. Olson
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.
In Re Marriage of Luciani v. Montemurro-Luciani
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.
In Re Marriage of Spindler v. Spindler
60-40 split of income affirmed where trial court found wife was capable of obtaining a full-time position.
In Re Marriage of Siker v. Siker
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.
In Re Marriage of King v. King
Trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by stating that a spouse has a legal right to maintenance.
In Re Marriage of Hokin v. Hokin
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.
In Re Marriage of Dutchin v. Dutchin
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.
In Re Marriage of Weiler v. Boerner
Trial court affirmed for holding maintenance open to husband (for purpose of ensuring payment of debts) and denying it to wife based on the enhanced value of the degree she earned during the marriage.