(1) Court gave due consideration to husband’s costs and tax considerations in making property division. (2) Court abused its discretion by using its own figure of 15% as a tax reduction on retirement plans, thus ignoring uncontradicted expert opinion.
Sometimes an asset can be used for property division or support, but not both. No error by trial court, then, by ordering that bonus would be divided, but not considered as a change in circumstances for maintenance increase.
(1) Once trial court uses QDRO to divide pension, present value is irrelevant to the property division. No unfairness to husband that wife can beg In Receiving immediate benefits, while he is not presently eligible. He could be eligible if he chose to retire. (2) Pension pay-out is distribution of estate and is not calculated into maintenance equation.
Needs are a proper consideration in property division.
Court has discretionary authority to order security for future property division payments.
Premarital property is subject to division.
Post-divorce income is not marital property under WI Stats §767.255.
Trial court must include insurance company termination benefits, despite their speculative nature. Trial court can choose, per Bloomer, a method of valuation, but should not hold open division until termination. Prolonging asset division does not promote judicial administration and it is not in the parties’ best interests to drag out the divorce.
Trial court properly charged husband with value of bank account where he withdrew funds, claiming legitimate household purposes. Court found he had funds to cover these expenses and that wife had similar expenses.
Trial court properly delayed equalization payment from wife until after husband gets out of jail. Trial court also properly provided for a dollar-for-dollar offset of child support against property division payments.