 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schmitt v. Schmitt2/8/2001
rit a substantial amount of maintenance for Arnold. We find no support in the record for Arnold's claim of gender bias.
. Finally, Arnold claims that the trial court erred in granting maintenance for only three years. He argues that there was no rational basis to limit the maintenance award to three years, and that the court should have awarded him maintenance indefinitely. Arnold contends that there was no evidence that he would become self-supporting in three years. He also insists that " t is not fair for Kathleen Schmitt to be able to live a lavish lifestyle while has to live frugally."
. The trial court cited several reasons in support of limited-term maintenance. First, the court specifically noted in its decision that Arnold could request continued maintenance at a future date, if necessary. Second, limited maintenance can serve many purposes, including an opportunity for the recipient spouse to become self-supporting within that period of time, as well as an incentive to seek employment. LaRocque, 139 Wis. 2d at 40-41. The court found that Arnold was slightly underemployed. In this case, the limited maintenance provides Arnold with an incentive to seek additional employment. Third, Arnold's counsel acknowledged that in three years Arnold would receive social security benefits. Fourth, both parties received retirement benefits in the property division.
. Arnold also contends that maintenance should be indefinite based on the length of the marriage and on the circumstances of the parties. He was fifty-nine years old at the time of the divorce, close to retirement age, and had back problems. However, as explained above, the court discounted the length of the marriage because the parties had lived separate lives for several years of the marriage. The trial court also determined that Arnold's health problems were typical of persons his age.
. In summary, we agree with Kathleen that the trial court's maintenance award is sustainable as a discretionary act because the court considered the relevant facts, applied the correct law, and reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach. See Loy v. Bunderson, 107 Wis. 2d 400, 414-15, 320 N.W.2d 175 (1982). We cannot conclude that $6,000 per year for three years failed to satisfy both the support and fairness objectives of maintenance. A trial court's discretionary determination of the amount and duration of maintenance to be awarded may encompass a result "which another judge or another court," including this one, might not have reached on the present facts. Hartung v. Hartung, 102 Wis. 2d 58, 66, 306 N.W.2d 16 (1981). Nonetheless, if it is a result "which a reasonable judge or court could arrive at by the consideration of the relevant law, the facts, and a process of logical reasoning," we will not disturb it. Id.
CONCLUSION
. For the reasons discussed above, we affirm the appealed judgment.
By the Court. -- Judgment affirmed.
Not recommended for publication in the official reports.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Wisconsin Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|