Archives: Property Division

The Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ decision in Dickau is the second appellate case dealing with the interrelationship between retirement and disability.

Recently, a New York became the sixth, and largest, state, plus the District of Columbia, to recognize same-sex marriage. If the current trend continues, more and more states will also legalize two men or two women entering into the same legal relationship as possible for a man and a woman.

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.

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.

This article analyzes the implications of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ opinion in McReath v. McReath.

When an appellate court decision starts by noting that a particular area of law has been characterized as a “quagmire,” one reasonably expects that the court will then proceed to clean up the confusion. So, when a recent Court of Appeals case explicitly states that its decision will not “pull Wisconsin out of the quagmire,” the case is worth reading more than once.

For years, Wisconsin appellate courts have wrestled with the treatment of defined benefit plans as either income available for support, property to be divided or (shudders) both. Now a new case creates substantial confusion.

A song by the Temptations comes to mind after reading Steinmann v. Steinmann. “Ball of Confusion.” That’s what the law of maintenance is today.

This is the second of three articles analyzing the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in Steinmann v. Steinmann, examining its implications for marital property agreements.