Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 2851 - 2860 of 26450 for marital settlement agreement/1000.

[PDF] WI 12
the terms of a Timber Sale Agency Agreement between D.C. and G.P. and J.P. More specifically
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35382 - 2014-09-15

Frontsheet
was retained to represent D.C. in connection with a dispute about the terms of a Timber Sale Agency Agreement
/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35382 - 2009-01-28

COURT OF APPEALS
that the circuit court should have awarded her double costs under Wis. Stat. § 807.01 (offer of settlement). We
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=60798 - 2011-09-27

[PDF] Elyse Joransen-Hamilton Knutson v. Richard C. Knutson
a marital property agreement as a condition of marriage does not constitute coercion. Gardner v. Gardner
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2790 - 2017-09-19

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
by each party against the other, also in January 2021. The judgment valued the marital property
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=485146 - 2022-02-17

[PDF] COURT OF APPEALS
incorporated a settlement agreement of the parties regarding the topics of custody and physical placement
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=636598 - 2023-03-23

[PDF] STATE OF WISCONSIN, CIRCUIT COURT,
of the ward’s or individual’s interests in property and any marital property interest regardless of how
/formdisplay/GN-3445.pdf?formNumber=GN-3445&formType=Form&formatId=2&language=en - 2024-06-24

[PDF] Deborah K. Deforth v. Gary L. Deforth
in marital property as follows: Factors c, e, f, g, h, j and L [of WIS. STAT. § 767.255] are relatively
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=25547 - 2017-09-21

[PDF] Carl I. Nelson, Jr. v. Charlotte A. Nelson
husband. The most significant assets were: the farm that served as the marital residence, which Carl
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=2586 - 2017-09-19

Deborah K. Deforth v. Gary L. Deforth
to increasing them. The circuit court explained its decision to award Deborah $225,000 in marital property
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=25547 - 2006-06-14