In Re Marriage of Winkler v. Winkler
Trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it declined to reopen judgement for Milwaukee County backdrop pension.
Dickau v. Dickau
Wife was entitled to husband’s disability benefits where husband opted to received disability benefits in lieu of pension benefits.
Johnson v. Masters
While the statute of repose under Wis. Stats. §893.40 applies in family law. However, in order to avoid absurd or unreasonable results, motion to accept a QDRO for a WRS plan should have been granted since the law changed after the divorce allowing such orders. Therefore, the statute of repose did not begin to run until the change went into effect.
Leighton v. Leighton
Trial court should consider unvested interest In Retirement plan. The fact that the interest is contingent does not mean that it can be ignored.
Heatwole v. Heatwole
Court has discretion in whether or not to consider non-vested pension rights.
In Re Marriage of Mack v. Mack
Court must consider unvested pension plan.
Derleth v. Cordova
Trial court reversed for not valuing the unvested portions of husband’s retirement plan where it was due to vest two weeks after the final hearing.
Bloomer v. Bloomer
Methods for valuing and distributing retirement plans.
Selchert v. Selchert
Valuation of pension based on price of a private annuity was improper. Pension should be handled by one of the three methods described in Bloomer.
Holbrook v. Holbrook
Trial court should be alert to advantages of dividing retirement at the time of divorce rather than postponing the actual division until employee-spouse retires. Where there are sufficient assets to divide the present value without causing an undue hardship, this method is preferred.