Click Here For The Best Chippewa Falls Divorce Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Chippewa Falls Divorce Lawyer Directory

Description:

Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin family law lawyers represented the Plaintiff and Defendant in a divorce case.

¶3 The parties married in April 2000 and had two children together.[2]Andrew filed for divorce in October 2019.

¶4 A final contested divorce hearing took place in December 2020, at which the primary issues were property division and maintenance. Following testimony from the parties and other witnesses, the circuit court orally granted a judgment of divorce but reserved ruling on the contested issues until the parties submitted further evidence and briefed the issues.[3]

¶5 After a hearing and briefing, the circuit court addressed the contested issues in a written decision on April 13, 2021. The court ordered Andrew to pay Jessica $1,200 per month in maintenance for ten years, specifically saying that it was doing so in "an attempt to equalize their income." The court also divided the parties' assets and debts, and it ordered Andrew to make an equalization payment of $33,764 to Jessica. The court entered another order on April 29, 2021, concerning the refinancing of a vehicle loan and a mortgage on the parties' home. The April 29 order also stated that the court would entertain motions for reconsideration and clarification of prior orders.

¶6 Jessica and Andrew filed separate motions for reconsideration of the circuit court's April 13 and 29, 2021 decisions. Andrew argued for an amendment to the initial asset and debt division. Conversely, and as relevant to this appeal,

Jessica argued that Andrew should be required to pay additional maintenance in order to fully account for Andrew's higher income. Jessica also argued that she was entitled to a greater equalization payment because the court included some, but not all, of Andrew's vehicles in its property division analysis, despite the fact that Jessica had established the existence of those vehicles.[4]

¶7 In August 2021, the circuit court entered a written "decision on motion to reconsider," addressing Andrew's motion by reducing the debts assigned to Jessica and amending the equalization payment to reflect the reduced debts. This resulted in a reduced equalization payment due to Jessica in the amount of $1,661.25. The August decision did not address Jessica's motion for reconsideration. Jessica sent a letter to the court in November 2021 requesting that it address, among other things, her motion for reconsideration of the April 13, 2021 decision as it related to the property division and the vehicles.

¶8 A hearing was held to address the remaining issues between the parties, including Jessica's motion for reconsideration. With respect to the property division and the vehicles, the circuit court denied Jessica's motion for reconsideration in a December 2021 written order. The court did not address Jessica's motion for reconsideration of the maintenance award.

¶9 Afterward, the parties further litigated a number of remaining issues-none relevant to this appeal-including allocating medical bills and loans. The circuit court issued a supplemental decision addressing the remaining issues in March 2022. In May 2022, the court issued amended findings of fact and a supplemental order that incorporated the March 2022 decision into the April 13, 2021 decision. Ultimately, the court ordered Andrew to make an equalization payment of $3,852.92 to Jessica. Andrew's maintenance obligation remained at $1,200 per month.

* * *

¶13 The determination of maintenance in a divorce action is a decision entrusted to the discretion of a circuit court and it is "not disturbed on review unless there has been an erroneous exercise of discretion." LeMere v. LeMere, 2003 WI 67, ¶13, 262 Wis.2d 426, 663 N.W.2d 789. "A circuit court's discretionary decision is upheld as long as the court 'examined the relevant facts, applied a proper standard of law, and, using a demonstrated rational process, reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach.'" Id. (citation omitted). "A circuit court erroneously exercises its discretion if it makes an error of law or neglects to base its decision upon facts in the record." Id., ¶14 (citation omitted).
In re Marriage of Baxter, 2022AP1236 (Wis. App. Aug 20, 2024)

Outcome: Reversed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: