PRACTICE AREAS ABOUT US HOMEPAGE CONTACT US TESTIMONIALS MEDIA Call Now 414.645.6100 24/7
For over 20 years Arena Law Offices, LLC has used his experience as a trial lawyer to represent clients in divorce. Attorney Arena has conducted divorce trials while representing a client's interests. These interests usually involve the preservation of assets in order to allow the client to go on with their life without losing everything that they worked for. Commonly, people believe that Wisconsin is a marital property state and everything gets split down the middle. This is in fact a presumption that may be rebutted, as the law allows the Court to deviate from this notion. There are certain circumstances where it would be deemed that an equal division would not be equitable. Wisconsin became a marital property state in 1986, which was done by the legislature to recognize the contribution made by a non-working spouse to the economic success of the family. This was in fact a fair way to look at the contributions of the home maker, and the partner in the relationship that provided most of thecare to the children. In essence the domestic engineer was making a contribution that was as valuable to the marital unit, as the spouse that was working full time. However, as a result of a change in the work force to include women there has been an impact on the economics of the family. Things have changed since 1986, and it is more common for couples to have no children, or have recently found themselves in an empty nest. Often these marriages involve spouses that have careers. Logically, it would not be fair to divide all of the assets equally. Wisconsin Statute 767.61(3) which states, "The Court shall presume that all property not described in sub. (2)(a) is to be divided equally between the parties, but may alter this distribution without regard to marital be divided equally between the parties, but may alter this distribution without regard to marital  misconduct after considering all of the following: (a)   The length of the marriage. (b)   The property brought to the marriage by each party. (c)   Whether one of the parties has substantial assets not subject to division by the court. (d)   The contribution of each party to the marriage, giving appropriate economic value to each party's contribution in home making and child care services. (e)   The age and physical and emotional health of the parties. (f)   The contribution by one party to the education, training or increased earning power of the other. (g)   The earning capacity of each party, including educational background, training employment skills, work experience length of absence from the job market, custodial responsibilities for children and the time and expense necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party to become self-supporting- at a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage. (h)   The desirability of awarding the family home or the right to live therein for a reasonable period to the party having physical placement for the greater period of time. (i)   The amount and duration of an order under s. 767.56 granting maintenance payments to either party, any order for periodic family support payments to either party, any order for periodic family support payments under s. 767.531 and whether the property division is in lieu of such payments. (j)   Other economic circumstances of each party, including pension benefits, vested or unvested, and future interests. (k)   The tax consequences to each party. (I)    Any written agreement made by the parties before or during the marriage concerning any arrangement for property distribution; such agreements shall be binding upon the court except that no such agreement shall be binding where the terms of the agreement are inequitable as to either party. The court shall presume any such agreement to be equitable as to both parties. (m)  Such other factors as the court may in each individual case determine to be relevant. A reading of the above statute clearly establishes that there are many circumstances in which a person being divorced may argue for an unequal distribution of the marital assets. One common situation is when one spouse wastes marital assets gambling, drinking, or on drug addictions. Another situation is where one spouse has refused to work and has made no real contribution to the house hold. Both of these were situations where I successfully argued to the Court that the marital presumption should not be applied. This allowed my client to keep their house and the lifestyle that they had worked so hard to create. The other spouse (who I refer to as the "city mouse" from the famed child hood tale that teaches us all that we have to work hard and save things for the winter or we may starve) was left with less money than they had expected. The last consideration allows the court to consider any factor that may be determined to be relevant. This allows for very creative arguments to be made in representing a party on either side of the equal division argument. These notions also work into considerations that the Court must take into account in determining to award maintenance under Wisconsin Statute 767.56. Maintenance should really only serve the purpose of creating opportunity for the non-working spouse, or spouse with less earnings to become self supporting at a lifestyle similar to the one enjoyed during the marriage. This may involve maintenance for a long enough time for the person to go back to school, or to seek training to enter a new career. The length of the marriage and the amount of time that the person is away from the career may have a large impact on the Court's decision. There is also a lot of case law interpreting the maintenance statute and most of the Court decision's support judicial mandates opposed to long and large maintenance payments. Rosplock v. Rosplock, 217 Wis. 2d 22, summarizes these statements and holds that the purpose of maintenance is at least in part to put the recipient in a solid financial position that allows the recipient to become self supporting by the end of the maintenance period. Courts have held in the recipient to become self supporting by the end of the maintenance period. Courts have held in regards to the length of maintenance that it is not meant to create a permanent annuity. (Murray v. Murray, 231 Wis.2d 71). There are situations that warrant substantial maintenance amounts and for substantial amounts of time. Regardless of the side that you may be on, it may be necessary to make arguments to the court that may need to be very creative. Attorney Arena typically involves the clients perspective in creating these arguments to the court. By really getting to know the client, and learning about their life as a married person. Attorney Arena puts himself in a position to be creative and advocate for the outcome that meets the client's goal in the litigation.
Arena Law Offices, LLC Phone: 414.645.6100 1110 N Old World 3rd St, Suite 210, Milwaukee, WI Fax: 414.645.3500 E-Mail: Andrew@ArenaLawOffices.com
PRACTICE AREAS ABOUT US HOMEPAGE CONTACT US TESTIMONIALS MEDIA Call Now 414.645.6100 24/7 Arena Law Offices, LLC Phone: 414.645.6100 1110 N Old World 3rd St, Suite 210, Milwaukee, WI Fax: 414.645.3500 E-Mail: Andrew@ArenaLawOffices.com
For over 20 years Arena Law Offices, LLC has used his experience as a trial lawyer to represent clients in divorce. Attorney Arena has conducted divorce trials while representing a client's interests. These interests usually involve the preservation of assets in order to allow the client to go on with their life without losing everything that they worked for. Commonly, people believe that Wisconsin is a marital property state and everything gets split down the middle. This is in fact a presumption that may be rebutted, as the law allows the Court to deviate from this notion. There are certain circumstances where it would be deemed that an equal division would not be equitable. Wisconsin became a marital property state in 1986, which was done by the legislature to recognize the contribution made by a non-working spouse to the economic success of the family. This was in fact a fair way to look  at the contributions of the home maker, and the partner in the relationship that provided most of thecare to the children. In essence the domestic engineer was making a contribution that was as valuable to the marital unit, as the spouse that was working full time. However, as a result of a change in the work force to include women there has been an impact on the economics of the family. Things have changed since 1986, and it is more common for couples to have no children, or have recently found themselves in an empty nest. Often these marriages involve spouses that have careers. Logically, it would not be fair to divide all of the assets equally. Wisconsin Statute 767.61(3) which states, "The Court shall presume that all property not described in sub. (2)(a) is to be divided equally between the parties, but may alter this distribution without regard to marital be divided equally between the parties, but may alter this distribution without regard to marital misconduct after considering all of the following: (a)   The length of the marriage. (b)   The property brought to the marriage by each party. (c)   Whether one of the parties has substantial assets not subject to division by the court. (d)   The contribution of each party to the marriage, giving appropriate economic value to each party's contribution in home making and child care services. (e)   The age and physical and emotional health of the parties. (f)   The contribution by one party to the education, training or increased earning power of the other. (g)   The earning capacity of each party, including educational background, training employment skills, work experience length of absence from the job market, custodial responsibilities for children and the time and expense necessary to acquire sufficient education or training to enable the party to become self-supporting- at a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage. (h)   The desirability of awarding the family home or the right to live therein for a reasonable period to the party having physical placement for the greater period of time. (i)   The amount and duration of an order under s. 767.56 granting maintenance payments to either party, any order for periodic family support payments to either party, any order for periodic family support payments under s. 767.531 and whether the property division is in lieu of such payments. (j)   Other economic circumstances of each party, including pension benefits, vested or unvested, and future interests. (k)   The tax consequences to each party. (I)    Any written agreement made by the parties before or during the marriage concerning any arrangement for property distribution; such agreements shall be binding upon the court except that no such agreement shall be binding where the terms of the agreement are inequitable as to either party. The court shall presume any such agreement to be equitable as to both parties. (m)  Such other factors as the court may in each individual case determine to be relevant. A reading of the above statute clearly establishes that there are many circumstances in which a person being divorced may argue for an unequal distribution of the marital assets. One common situation is when one spouse wastes marital assets gambling, drinking, or on drug addictions. Another situation is where one spouse has refused to work and has made no real contribution to the house hold. Both of these were situations where I successfully argued to the Court that the marital presumption should not be applied. This allowed my client to keep their house and the lifestyle that they had worked so hard to create. The other spouse (who I refer to as the "city mouse" from the famed child hood tale that teaches us all that we have to work hard and save things for the winter or we may starve) was left with less money than they had expected. The last consideration allows the court to consider any factor that may be determined to be relevant. This allows for very creative arguments to be made in representing a party on either side of the equal division argument. These notions also work into considerations that the Court must take into account in determining to award maintenance under Wisconsin Statute 767.56. Maintenance should really only serve the purpose of creating opportunity for the non-working spouse, or spouse with less earnings to become self supporting at a lifestyle similar to the one enjoyed during the marriage. This may involve maintenance for a long enough time for the person to go back to school, or to seek training to enter a new career. The length of the marriage and the amount of time that the person is away from the career may have a large impact on the Court's decision. There is also a lot of case law interpreting the maintenance statute and most of the Court decision's support judicial mandates opposed to long and large maintenance payments. Rosplock v. Rosplock, 217 Wis. 2d 22, summarizes these statements and holds that the purpose of maintenance is at least in part to put the recipient in a solid financial position that allows the recipient to become self supporting by the end of the maintenance period. Courts have held in the recipient to become self supporting by the end of the maintenance period. Courts have held in regards to the length of maintenance that it is not meant to create a permanent annuity. (Murray v. Murray, 231 Wis.2d 71). There are situations that warrant substantial maintenance amounts and for substantial amounts of time. Regardless of the side that you may be on, it may be necessary to make arguments to the court that may need to be very creative. Attorney Arena typically involves the clients perspective in creating these arguments to the court. By really getting to know the client, and learning about their life as a married person. Attorney Arena puts himself in a position to be creative and advocate for the outcome that meets the client's goal in the litigation.