Opinion
Case No. 98-0787-FT.
Opinion Released: October 8, 1998. Opinion Filed: October 8, 1998. This opinion will not be published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Clark County: MICHAEL W. BRENNAN, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Dykman, P.J., Vergeront and Roggensack, JJ.
Paul Smriga appeals from the trial court's judgment awarding Judith Smriga, his former wife, $475 per month in maintenance payments for eight years. The issue is whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in awarding Judith maintenance. We affirm.
This is an expedited appeal under Rule 809.17, Stats.
The interrelated objectives of maintenance are "to support the recipient spouse in accordance with the needs and earning capacities of the parties (the support objective) and to ensure a fair and equitable financial arrangement between the parties in each individual case (the fairness objective)." LaRocque v. LaRocque , 139 Wis.2d 23, 33, 406 N.W.2d 736, 740 (1987). The trial court should consider the length of the marriage; the age, physical, and emotional health of the parties; the property division; each party's educational level at marriage and at divorce; the earning capacity of the party seeking maintenance; and other factors. See § 767.26, Stats. The award or denial of maintenance is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. LaRocque , 139 Wis.2d at 27, 406 N.W.2d at 737.
Paul contends that the trial court erred because it failed to consider Judith's need (or, as he argues, lack thereof ) and his ability to pay maintenance in light of his legal obligations to creditors after he reaffirmed debts after bankruptcy.
The trial court focused on the fairness objective of maintenance in making its award. At the end of their twenty-eight year marriage, Judith's earnings were $41,000 per year and Paul's earnings were $54,000 per year. The trial court's award allows Judith and Paul to share more equally in the financial rewards the two have reaped. Although the trial court noted that Paul had the right to reaffirm large debt payments on several pieces of property after bankruptcy, the court also properly concluded that Paul's decision to do so should not be at Judith's expense. Lowering her maintenance award because of his voluntary, increased monthly debt payments would not be fair, especially because those payments will allow Paul to retain several pieces of property, while Judith will have no such benefit. The trial court's award properly prevents "unjust enrichment of either party" by sharing their income between them, while allowing each party to do whatever they choose with that income. See LaRocque , 139 Wis.2d at 33, 406 N.W.2d at 740. There was no erroneous exercise of discretion.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.