Defendant's Attorney:

Description:

Kenosha, Wisconsin divorce lawyers represented Petitioner and Responded in a marriage dissolution


Tracy Diane Danielson[1] appeals from a judgment of divorce following her lengthy marriage to Christopher John Danielson. She contends that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in valuing and dividing the parties' retirement assets without considering the impact of their disparate social security benefits and by failing to consider those social security benefits in limiting the scope of the held-open maintenance from Christopher to her. We agree that, while social security benefits themselves may not be divided in a divorce, it is appropriate for a court to consider their impact pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 767.61(3) (2021-22)[2] when fairly and equitably dividing the marital estate. We further agree that a similar consideration of social security benefits may be relevant to held-open maintenance.

* * *


¶3 After thirty-one years of marriage, Tracy and Christopher, both of whom resided in Wisconsin, were divorced in 2021. At the time of divorce, Tracy was fifty-nine years old, in good health, and working as a teacher in Illinois with an annual salary of approximately $89,000. Christopher was fifty-eight years old, also in good health, and employed as a maintenance technician earning approximately $48,000 annually. Upon "considering] the dual objectives of ... support and fairness," the trial court awarded maintenance in the amount of $750 per month to be paid to Christopher by Tracy.[3] When Tracy sought clarification regarding maintenance from Christopher to her, the court issued a supplement to its prior decision and order and stated that this issue would be held open because, "[a]s a teacher in the State of Illinois and participant in the Illinois Teacher Retirement System, [Tracy] makes no contributions to social security." This "reservation of maintenance is limited to a situation in which, for reasons not currently contemplated, [Tracy] is unable to enjoy the benefits of her retirement contributions through the Illinois Teacher Retirement System."

¶4 The trial court also found that "the presumption of equal division ha[d] not been overcome," and so endeavored in its decision and order to divide the parties' marital property-including each of their various retirement plans- substantially equally. The most valuable of these retirement plans by far was Tracy's pension from the Illinois Teacher Retirement System, having a present value of approximately $1.1 million; Christopher's two pension plans had a combined present value of approximately $169,000 and Tracy's other two retirement accounts had a combined present value of approximately $97,000. Although the parties' joint expert testified regarding Tracy's and Christopher's expected social security benefits, the court did not refer to the fact that, owing to Tracy's participation in her teacher's pension program and her ineligibility to receive social security benefits based on her earnings as a teacher, Tracy's
monthly benefit was projected to be only $334 at age sixty-seven while Christopher's monthly benefit would be $1,878 at age sixty-seven.

¶5 Tracy appeals, contesting both the property division and the scope of the held-open maintenance award.
In re Marriage of Danielson, 2022AP1630 (Wis. App. Sep 11, 2024)

Outcome: Reversed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: