|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED June 6, 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. 95-3175-FT
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT IV
In re the Marriage of:
DEBRA L. SONSALLA,
Joint-Petitioner-Respondent,
v.
DANIEL E. SONSALLA,
Joint-Petitioner-Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment
of the circuit court for Sauk County:
PATRICK J. TAGGERT, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Eich, C.J.,
Sundby and Vergeront, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Daniel Sonsalla appeals from the judgment divorcing
him from Debra Sonsalla. The issue is
whether the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by assigning
Daniel a disproportionate share of the marital debts. We conclude that the trial court properly exercised its
discretion and therefore affirm.[1]
Daniel solely owns and
operates a trucking business. At trial
he testified that the business was heavily indebted as of July 5, 1994, the
date the parties set for valuing their assets and liabilities. The trial court equally divided $50,000
worth of those business debts. However,
the court held Daniel solely responsible for an additional $24,000 in
debts. In doing so the court noted that
Daniel had previously lied about the value of a substantial asset in the
estate, and had the ability as sole owner to manipulate the expenses of his
company. All other marital property and
indebtedness were equally divided and are not at issue on appeal.
In a divorce action the
court presumes that the property shall be equally divided. Section 767.255(3), Stats. However, the
court may alter the distribution after considering the various specifically
identified factors, and "[s]uch other factors as the court may in each
individual case deem relevant." Id. Distribution under § 767.255(3) is
discretionary. Haugen v. Haugen,
117 Wis.2d 200, 215, 343 N.W.2d 796, 804 (1984). We affirm a discretionary award if the trial court articulates
its reasoning and bases the award on facts of record and proper legal
standards, and the award is not excessive nor inadequate. Id. at 215-16, 343 N.W.2d at
804.
The trial court properly
assigned Daniel a disproportionate share of the business debts. Daniel had sole control over the business
and did his own accounting. There was
evidence that he often included personal expenses on his business accounts and
otherwise manipulated the books in order to minimize profits. During the proceeding he admitted trying to
falsify the value of another asset. Under
these circumstances, the trial court could reasonably find that the debts reported
on any given date, such as July 5, 1994, might be artificially or temporarily
inflated. Requiring that Daniel assume
a higher proportion of the liabilities was therefore a reasonable outcome.
By the Court.—Judgment
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.