COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED March 6, 1997 |
NOTICE |
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 95-3596
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF:
ROGER BOSMAN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
DEBRA A. BOSMAN,
Respondent-Respondent.
APPEAL from an order of
the circuit court for La Crosse County:
JOHN J. PERLICH, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Eich, C.J.,
Dykman, P.J., and Vergeront, J.
PER
CURIAM. Roger Bosman appeals from an order awarding limited
term maintenance to his ex-wife, Debra Bosman.
The issue is whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion
in setting the amount and duration of the award. We affirm on both questions.
The parties divorced in
1990 after sixteen years of marriage.
Because Roger became unemployed just before the final divorce hearing,
the issue of maintenance was held open.
In 1991, Roger regained full-time employment. However, Debra did not seek maintenance until 1995, after the
couple’s two children became adults and Roger ceased paying child support.
At the beginning of the
marriage, both parties worked full time, with Debra earning more than
Roger. After the children were born,
Roger became the primary wage earner and Debra the primary caretaker of the
children. She continued to work, but
mostly in part-time low-paying jobs.
Additionally, Roger’s employment caused them to move several times,
further disrupting her job situation and career opportunities.
In 1994, Roger earned
$54,000 as a sales manager, including a $7,000 bonus, and Debra earned $25,000
working for an insurance firm. She
believed that she was on track to substantially increase her earnings, given
time to work her way up in the company.
In the meantime, she was unable to afford a home and lived in an
apartment. She also testified to other
restrictions on her life-style since the divorce. At the time of the hearing, Roger was forty-three and Debra
forty-two and in good health. Each had
negligible assets. Roger lived in a
home with his second wife.
The court found that
Roger had a much higher present earning capacity and that Debra had suffered
the greater reduction in her standard of living since the divorce. The court also considered the length of the
marriage and the loss in Debra’s earning capacity that occurred each time the
parties moved in order to preserve Roger's job and earning capacity. Based on those factors, the court awarded
forty-five percent of the parties' gross income, not including Roger’s bonuses,
to Debra for a period of eight years.
In making the award, the court did not consider the parties’ financial
reports, deeming them unreliable. The
initial award under the court’s formula was $571 per month, to be revised
annually based on the parties’ tax returns.
On appeal, Roger challenges the award as excessive in amount and
duration.
The amount and duration
of maintenance is a matter of trial court discretion. Haugan v. Haugan, 117 Wis.2d 200, 215, 343 N.W.2d
796, 804 (1984). The trial court
properly exercises that discretion if it articulates its reasoning, bases the
award on facts of record and the correct legal standards, and awards
maintenance that is neither excessive nor inadequate. Id. at 215-16, 343 N.W.2d at 804. The object of maintenance is to leave each
party with adequate means of support and to treat each fairly and
equitably. LaRocque v. LaRocque,
139 Wis.2d 23, 32-33, 406 N.W.2d 736, 740 (1987).
Debra's award of
forty-five percent of the parties’ gross income is not excessive. The trial court stopped short of awarding
Debra fifty percent of the parties' income because the marriage, while long,
was not a life-long commitment. On the
other hand, the record demonstrates without dispute that Debra substantially
sacrificed her earning capacity and potential career opportunities to care for
the children and to facilitate Roger's career.
The trial court appropriately relied on that factor to award
maintenance, under § 767.26(5) and (9), Stats.,
and the resulting income and life-style disparity several years later justified
the amount awarded. Additionally,
because the award is based on a percentage formula, if Debra’s financial
situation improves as she anticipates, the award will diminish accordingly.
The trial court also
reasonably chose an eight-year term for the award. Debra’s employment with her company was relatively recent. Although she testified that she expected to
advance in the company, she did not anticipate that to happen imminently. She requested ten years of maintenance. The court could reasonably conclude that
under the circumstances, and given the substantial disparity in income between
the parties, eight years was an appropriate measurement of Debra's need for
assistance while she regained the earning capacity sacrificed during the
marriage. As noted, any gains in income
that Debra receives in the meantime will result in a diminished award.
By the Court.—Order
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.