Kanehl v. Pitel


2012AP1164 (Filed June 11, 2013)


Trial court did not have to find shirking to impute income given the flexibility of the father’s income.  Also, no error by not considering depreciation of building which the father bought for his business or not to deduct the principal payments on the note for the building.  The father had control over the transactions and his business benefits from the building.  (Not published, but citable.)

[ Full Opinion ]