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.