 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] In re Marriage of Decker-Sidmore11/26/2003
cord does not support the trial court's finding that it would take four years for Barbara to obtain her master's degree and to establish herself in her chosen field of educational counseling. We agree that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by determining the amount of Kenneth's out-of-pocket business expenses as $1,000 per month. We conclude, however, that the record contains sufficient evidence to support the trial court's maintenance decision in all other respects.
. A trial court is to consider factors set forth in Wis. Stat. ยง 767.26 to determine whether maintenance is to be awarded, how much and for how long. The purpose of maintenance is to achieve two objectives: support and fairness. Hokin v. Hokin, 231 Wis. 2d 184, 200-01, 605 N.W.2d 219 (Ct. App. 1999). The first objective is to ensure the spouse is supported in accordance with the needs and earning capacity of the parties. Id. The second objective ensures a fair and equitable arrangement between the parties in each individual case. Id.
. The determination of maintenance is a decision entrusted to the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on review unless there has been an erroneous exercise of discretion. LeMere v. LeMere, 2003 WI 67, , 262 Wis. 2d 426, 663 N.W.2d 789. Again, "a discretionary determination must be the product of a rational mental process by which the facts of record and law relied upon are stated and are considered together for the purpose of achieving a reasoned and reasonable determination." Id. A trial 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. If a trial court fails to adequately set forth its reasoning in reaching a discretionary decision, we will search the record for reasons to sustain that decision. Long v. Long, 196 Wis. 2d 691, 698, 539 N.W.2d 642 (Ct. App. 1995).
. The trial court found Barbara's earning capacity was $12,000 per year, stating:
I find that Barbara has been working full time for the American Trust and Savings Bank for four or five weeks, and that she has been earning $9.00 per hour or $360 per week. This is the equivalent of $18,000 per year. She has also worked for a plumber for $7.50 per hour and has earned as much as $10.00 per hour. But I also consider that these are temporary employments, and may not continue indefinitely. Thus, I do not consider her earning capacity as $18,000 per year. Barbara testified that she is seeking full time employment and would accept full time employment if offered. Taking into consideration the temporary nature of her employment, her present wage and her desire for full time work, I find that Barbara's earning capacity is presently $12,000 per year.
. On October 25, 2002, Barbara had been working at American Trust and Savings Bank for the four or five weeks prior to trial and was earning $9.00 per hour. Previously, she had worked as office help for a plumber for two weeks, earning $7.50 per hour. She was working for Sedona Staffing Services, a temporary help agency, and had worked earlier that year for Chesney Heart and Nordstroms. She worked for Farm and Fleet in 2001 earning approximately $6.00 per hour. From January 1, 2002 through January 20, 2002, Barbara had earned approximately $1,200, the equivalent of $400 per week or $10.00 per hour.
. The trial court awarded Barbara $992 per month in maintenance, assuming her income was $12,000 per year. Trial courts are entitled to make inferences from undisputed or found facts. State v. Drogsvold, 104 Wis. 2d 247, 256, 311 N.W.2d
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wisconsin Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|