|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED JANUARY 14, 1997 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 96-1852-FT
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT III
In re the Marriage of:
ELLEN S. KRUEGER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
DOUGLAS A. KRUEGER,
Respondent-Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Outagamie County:
DENNIS C. LUEBKE, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Cane, P.J.,
LaRocque and Myse, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Ellen Krueger appeals that part of a divorce judgment
awarding her $35,000 annual maintenance.[1] She argues that the trial court did not
state adequate reasons for giving her less than half of the parties' joint
annual income. We reject this argument
and affirm the judgment.
At the time the parties
married, Douglas had earned his dental degree.
Ellen was finishing college at that time. After they married, they used Douglas's income to pay off both of
their student loans, and Douglas paid for Ellen's post-graduate courses. Ellen worked outside the home all but eight
years of the twenty-three year marriage, including fulltime work for the last
twelve years. At the time of the
divorce she earned approximately $41,000 per nine-month school year at a
technical school. Douglas earned approximately
$185,000 per year as a dentist.
The trial court divided
the marital property equally, awarding each party approximately one-half
million dollars. It then considered
each of the factors set out in § 767.26, Stats.,
and determined that $35,000 annual maintenance added to Ellen's $41,000 income
would allow her to spend and save money at one-half the rate the couple spent
and saved during the marriage. The
court noted that Douglas had completed his education prior to their marriage
and significantly contributed toward Ellen's education. While Ellen was somewhat disadvantaged
because she was out of the job market for eight years early in the marriage,
her continued education and work history distinguish her situation from that
found in Bahr v. Bahr, 107 Wis.2d 72, 74, 318 N.W.2d 391, 393
(1982), where the wife had no significant employment history and medical
problems that affected her earning capacity and in LaRocque v. LaRocque,
139 Wis.2d 23, 28, 406 N.W.2d 736, 738 (1987), where the wife contributed
significantly to her husband's stream of income, had no recent employment
history and received a smaller estate in the property division. Ellen argues that she contributed to
Douglas's dental practice during the marriage.
The record shows that she worked only 100 days at the business over the
course of the twenty-three year marriage.
The trial court reasonably gave little weight to Ellen's contributions
toward Douglas's practice.
Ellen complains that the
maintenance award will not allow her to enjoy the lifestyle that she could have
anticipated had the marriage continued.
She cites no specific objective that will not be met. The property division has given her access to
substantial investment capital. The
maintenance award reflects one-half of the couple's annual spending plus
one-half of their annual savings. By
her own testimony, this amount will allow Ellen to maintain her lifestyle,
travel and investments. The court based
Ellen's award in part on her expenses while she lived separate from Douglas. We conclude that the maintenance award
constitutes a reasoned and reasonable determination that is the product of a
rational mental process, Hartung v. Hartung, 102 Wis.2d 58, 66,
306 N.W.2d 16, 20 (1981), and constitutes a proper exercise of the court's
discretion.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.