Archive: 2011

This article will first examine the historical development of the concept of impermissible double counting, next examine the recent case (McReath v. McReath) and suggest what courts should do if the issue presents itself.

Listening to oral arguments is generally frustrating for me. Case in point: On Oct. 6, the Wisconsin Supreme Court heard oral arguments in May v. May.

On July 12, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its opinion in McReath v. McReath, involving the challenging issues of salable goodwill and double-counting of property and income. In a case involving important issues, how did the court do? Overall, pretty well.

When the Wisconsin Supreme Court chose to accept review of Topolski v. Topolski, I wondered why, especially after the court had rejected review of several family law cases where its input would’ve been useful. On July 8, the high court issued its decision, which – yawn – did nothing to change my mind, or to justify the time and effort expended by this court in granting review.

A few years ago, it appeared that collaborative divorce, and its cousin, cooperative divorce, would be the “new thing,” revolutionizing the practice of divorce in Wisconsin. It recently felt like time to update the study — which resulted in some very different conclusions.

Wisconsin had long adhered to the “relevance” test for expert testimony: Whether the evidence would likely assist the finder of fact. As recently as a year ago, the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to adopt Daubert. Never shy, the Wisconsin Legislature has decided it knows evidentiary law better than the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Could it be that our Supreme Court, which has gone over two years without deciding a single significant family law case, could have not one, but two such cases before it in the present term? Am I dreaming?

An open letter to Wisconsin Lawmakers on spousal maintenance,

There’s an old joke about a husband not wanting to pay his wife any maintenance. The judge, after hearing the evidence, finds she is entitled to support and says, “I’m going to give her $1,000 per month.” The husband responds, “Damn nice of you, judge. I’ll kick in a couple hundred bucks of my own.”