Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Wisconsin opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In RE MARRIAGE OF GERRITS v. Gerritsgreen2 sentences2003See Johnson II, 225 Wis. 2d at 519 ("A payee spouse is not entitled to maintenance allowing a lifestyle above and beyond the predivorce standard of living."); Gerrits, 167 Wis. 2d at 442-43 (vacating award based on payor's ability to pay and remanding case for redetermination of the amount necessary to maintain payee spouse at the marital standard); Harris v. Harris, 141 Wis. 2d 569, 579 , 415 N.W.2d 586 (Ct. App. 1987) (noting that circuit court correctly concluded that payee spouse was not entitled to more maintenance simply because payor spouse can afford to pay more). 2003See Johnson II, 225 Wis. 2d at 519 ("A payee spouse is not entitled to maintenance allowing a lifestyle above and beyond the predivorce standard of living."); Gerrits, 167 Wis. 2d at 442-43 (vacating award based on payor's ability to pay and remanding case for redetermination of the amount necessary to maintain payee spouse at the marital standard); Harris v. Harris, 141 Wis. 2d 569, 579 , 415 N.W.2d 586 (Ct. App. 1987) (nothing that circuit court correctly concluded that payee spouse was not entitled to more maintenance simply because payor spouse can afford to pay more). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Marriage of Crosettogreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., In re Marriage of Crosetto, 1 P.3d 1180, 1184 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (parties can consent on remand to having a successor judge decide a case based on the original record). 6 While set forth in detail in the background section of this opinion, we reiterate this court's determination that the trial court "did not adhere to the charge that the recipient spouse is entitled to maintenance to support the predivorce standard of living," "ignored evidence that during the marriage the parties made cash investments and savings," and alluded to Judith's property division award and equity in th | 1 | 1 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF JOHNSON v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2003See Johnson II, 225 Wis. 2d at 519 ("A payee spouse is not entitled to maintenance allowing a lifestyle above and beyond the predivorce standard of living."); Gerrits, 167 Wis. 2d at 442-43 (vacating award based on payor's ability to pay and remanding case for redetermination of the amount necessary to maintain payee spouse at the marital standard); Harris v. Harris, 141 Wis. 2d 569, 579 , 415 N.W.2d 586 (Ct. App. 1987) (noting that circuit court correctly concluded that payee spouse was not entitled to more maintenance simply because payor spouse can afford to pay more). 2003See Johnson II, 225 Wis. 2d at 519 ("A payee spouse is not entitled to maintenance allowing a lifestyle above and beyond the predivorce standard of living."); Gerrits, 167 Wis. 2d at 442-43 (vacating award based on payor's ability to pay and remanding case for redetermination of the amount necessary to maintain payee spouse at the marital standard); Harris v. Harris, 141 Wis. 2d 569, 579 , 415 N.W.2d 586 (Ct. App. 1987) (nothing that circuit court correctly concluded that payee spouse was not entitled to more maintenance simply because payor spouse can afford to pay more). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hutnikgreen2 sentences1992State v. Hutnik, 39 Wis. 2d 754, 763 , 159 N.W.2d 733, 737 (1968). 7 Because of the somewhat equivocal nature of the court's statement in this regard — "it . . . appear[s] that an additional award of $500 to $1,000.00 per month would probably meet those needs" — we hesitate to label it as a finding of fact having any binding effect on the determination of Miriam's predivorce standard of living on remand. 8 William suggests at one point in his brief that the parties were living at an "elevated" standard of living — living well beyond their own means — because of gifts of money and other items f 1992State v. Hutnik, 39 Wis. 2d 754, 763 , 159 N.W.2d 733, 737 (1968). 7 Because of the somewhat equivocal nature of the court's statement in this regard — "it . . . appear[s] that an additional award of $500 to $1,000.00 per month would probably meet those needs" — we hesitate to label it as a finding of fact having any binding effect on the determination of Miriam's predivorce standard of living on remand. 8 William suggests at one point in his brief that the parties were living at an "elevated" standard of living — living well beyond their own means — because of gifts of money and other items f | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Marriage of McReath v. McReath
green
2 sentences2019Denial of maintenance to Brian ¶15 An award of maintenance at divorce serves two objectives: (1) support of the payee spouse at a predivorce standard of living; and (2) fairness, "which aims to 'compensate the recipient spouse for contributions made to the marriage, give effect to the parties' financial arrangements, or prevent unjust enrichment of either party.' " McReath v. McReath , 2011 WI 66 , ¶44, 335 Wis. 2d 643 , 800 N.W.2d 399 (citation omitted). 2019Denial of maintenance to Brian ¶15 An award of maintenance at divorce serves two objectives: (1) support of the payee spouse at a predivorce standard of living; and (2) fairness, "which aims to 'compensate the recipient spouse for contributions made to the marriage, give effect to the parties' financial arrangements, or prevent unjust enrichment of either party.' " McReath v. McReath , 2011 WI 66 , ¶44, 335 Wis. 2d 643 , 800 N.W.2d 399 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF SCHEUER v. Scheuer
green
2 sentences2019Scheuer v. Scheuer , 2006 WI App 38 , ¶11, 290 Wis. 2d 250 , 711 N.W.2d 698 . 2019Scheuer v. Scheuer , 2006 WI App 38 , ¶11, 290 Wis. 2d 250 , 711 N.W.2d 698 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF KENYON v. Kenyon
green
1 sentence2019On the question of whether Juul, now a retiree, should have attributed to him a minimum wage income for a thirty-five-hour work week ($1100 per month), the court found that such attribution was "fair and reasonable under the circumstances because it recognizes [Juul's] voluntary decision to remove himself from the labor market despite having a current earning capacity." 5 Applying the principle that maintenance should be set at a level that allows a party to live at or close to the predivorce standard of living, Kenyon , 277 Wis. 2d 47 , ¶28, the court found that Zeman required maintenance and | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF HUBERT v. Hubert
green
2 sentences2010Ladwig, slip op. ¶¶ 9-11, 13; see Wis. Stat. § 767.56 ; Hubert v. Hubert, 159 Wis. 2d 803, 819 , 465 N.W.2d 252 (Ct. App. 1990). 2010Ladwig, slip op. ¶¶ 9-11, 13; see Wis. Stat. § 767.56 ; Hubert v. Hubert, 159 Wis. 2d 803, 819 , 465 N.W.2d 252 (Ct. App. 1990). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF DOERR v. Doerr
green
2 sentences2006Doerr v. Doerr, 189 Wis. 2d 112, 124 , 525 N.W.2d 745 (Ct. App. 1994). ¶ 7. 2006Doerr v. Doerr, 189 Wis. 2d 112, 124 , 525 N.W.2d 745 (Ct. App. 1994). ¶ 7. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF HARRIS v. Harris
green
2 sentences2003See Johnson II, 225 Wis. 2d at 519 ("A payee spouse is not entitled to maintenance allowing a lifestyle above and beyond the predivorce standard of living."); Gerrits, 167 Wis. 2d at 442-43 (vacating award based on payor's ability to pay and remanding case for redetermination of the amount necessary to maintain payee spouse at the marital standard); Harris v. Harris, 141 Wis. 2d 569, 579 , 415 N.W.2d 586 (Ct. App. 1987) (noting that circuit court correctly concluded that payee spouse was not entitled to more maintenance simply because payor spouse can afford to pay more). 2003See Johnson II, 225 Wis. 2d at 519 ("A payee spouse is not entitled to maintenance allowing a lifestyle above and beyond the predivorce standard of living."); Gerrits, 167 Wis. 2d at 442-43 (vacating award based on payor's ability to pay and remanding case for redetermination of the amount necessary to maintain payee spouse at the marital standard); Harris v. Harris, 141 Wis. 2d 569, 579 , 415 N.W.2d 586 (Ct. App. 1987) (noting that circuit court correctly concluded that payee spouse was not entitled to more maintenance simply because payor spouse can afford to pay more). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF POPP v. Popp
green
2 sentences1994In Popp , for example, we overturned a determination of hardship that had been based primarily on the fact that "[the wife's] standard of living would be affected and she would be deprived of the economic benefit of her years of contribution to the family unit in the form of housekeeping, consortium and child care." Popp, 146 Wis. 2d at 793 , 432 N.W.2d at 605 . 1994In Popp , for example, we overturned a determination of hardship that had been based primarily on the fact that "[the wife's] standard of living would be affected and she would be deprived of the economic benefit of her years of contribution to the family unit in the form of housekeeping, consortium and child care." Popp, 146 Wis. 2d at 793 , 432 N.W.2d at 605 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.