|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED AUGUST 20, 1996 |
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. 96-0187-FT
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT III
In re the Marriage of:
STANLEY E. ANDREWS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
DONA M. ANDREWS,
Respondent-Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Dunn County:
JAMES A. WENDLAND, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Cane, P.J.,
LaRocque and Myse, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Stanley Andrews appeals the maintenance award of the
divorce judgment.[1] The trial court ordered $250 monthly
payments until Stanley retired or reached the age of sixty-five. The trial court rejected Stanley's request
for an adjustment on the ground that the award would force him to tap into his
IRA with associated adverse tax consequences.
The trial court made a
discretionary decision. LaRocque
v. LaRocque, 139 Wis.2d 23, 27, 406 N.W.2d 736, 737 (1987). On appeal, Stanley argues that the trial
court wrongly disregarded the adverse tax consequences of tapping his IRA and
that the maintenance award violated the fairness and support objectives
applicable to all maintenance awards.
We reject these arguments and affirm the judgment.
The trial court had no
basis to make an adjustment for the tax consequences of using his IRA. First, Stanley did not show that he needed
to use it. Second, he provided no
evidence of the tax consequences.
Divorce courts may disregard tax consequences without such
evidence. Fowler v. Fowler,
158 Wis.2d 508, 518-19, 463 N.W.2d 370, 373 (Ct. App. 1990). Under these circumstances, Stanley's tax
consequences never rose above the level of conjecture.
The trial court also
awarded a reasonable amount of maintenance.
Maintenance awards have a fairness objective and support objective. See LaRocque, 139
Wis.2d at 33, 39, 406 N.W.2d at 740, 742.
Here, Stanley's $250 monthly obligation complied with these principles
from his perspective. It fell short of
raising Dona's income to Stanley's income level and amounted to only 12% of his
income. It also will cease when Stanley
retires or reaches the age of sixty-five.
Viewed in this light, the award was consistent with the support and
fairness objectives. It reflected a
proper exercise of discretion.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.