Schumacher v. Schumacher

12 Citing cases

  1. Delaney v. Delaney

    726 N.W.2d 356 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006)

    Accordingly, we must affirm its determination that the Delaney marital property agreement was inequitable for lack of a fair and reasonable disclosure of John's financial status at the time the agreement was signed. SeeSchumacher v.Schumacher, 131 Wis. 2d 332, 337, 388 N.W.2d 912 (1986) ("We will sustain a discretionary act of the circuit court if the court examined the relevant facts, applied a proper standard of law, and, using a demonstrated rational process, reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach."). ¶ 18 John argues, however, that we should conclude on the present record that Mary waived her right to any disclosures regarding John's assets beyond the listing of those assets, without values, on Exhibit One attached to the agreement.

  2. In re Marriage of Delaney v. Delaney

    726 N.W.2d 356 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006)

    Accordingly, we must affirm its determination that the Delaney marital property agreement was inequitable for lack of a fair and reasonable disclosure of John's financial status at the time the agreement was signed. SeeSchumacher v. Schumacher, 131 Wis. 2d 332, 337, 388 N.W.2d 912 (1986) ("We will sustain a discretionary act of the circuit court if the court examined the relevant facts, applied a proper standard of law, and, using a demonstrated rational process, reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach."). ¶ 18 John argues, however, that we should conclude on the present record that Mary waived her right to any disclosures regarding John's assets beyond the listing of those assets, without values, on Exhibit One attached to the agreement.

  3. In re Marriage of Stayer

    Case No. 95-2534 (Wis. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 1996)

    Finally, a de minimis failure to disclose will not invalidate an agreement. Schumacher v. Schumacher, 131 Wis.2d 332, 338, 388 N.W.2d 912, 914-15 (1986). Here, Ralph's expert's valuation is $129,000 more than the value Ralph offered in 1986, a small percent of Ralph's total net estate.

  4. Estate of Thies

    273 Mont. 272 (Mont. 1995)   Cited 11 times
    Affirming district court's determination that there was fair disclosure where evidence showed wife knew husband had residence, two cars, personal belongings, and retirement account

    Rather, the record reveals nothing more than an unfulfilled recital of disclosure and the District Court's unreasonable assumption that Eleanor should have known as a matter of general knowledge, that Everett had a retirement fund of unknown value. In Schumacher v. Schumacher (Wis. 1986), 388 N.W.2d 912, 915, the Wisconsin Supreme Court pointed out that, when the parties to a prenuptial agreement do not fairly and reasonably disclose their actual assets to one another, independent knowledge of one another's financial status may substitute for fair and reasonable disclosure. Nonetheless, such independent knowledge must be more than a general knowledge of the other's assets and their value.

  5. State v. Johnson

    149 Wis. 2d 418 (Wis. 1989)   Cited 24 times
    In Johnson, the supreme court reversed a court of appeals reversal of Johnson's conviction by a jury of two counts of second-degree sexual assault.

    Id. (citation omitted). See also McCleary v. State, 49 Wis.2d 263, 277, 182 N.W.2d 512 (1971) ("[T]his court will not find an abuse of discretion if there exists a reasonable basis for the trial court's determination") (citation omitted); Schumacher v. Schumacher, 131 Wis.2d 332, 336, 388 N.W.2d 912 (1986) ("We will sustain a discretionary act . . . if the court . . . reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach"). There are two circumstances under which we have held that the real controversy has not been fully tried: `(1) When the jury was erroneously not given the opportunity to hear important testimony that bore on an important issue of the case; and (2) When the jury had before it evidence not properly admitted which so clouded a crucial issue that it may be fairly said that the real controversy was not fully tried.

  6. In re Marriage of Rudie

    No. 2021AP1892 (Wis. Ct. App. Jan. 18, 2024)

    ¶13 Mary Ann also argues that the circuit court erred by making her responsible for all of the marital debt. The division of the marital estate upon divorce is within the sound discretion of the circuit court. Schumacher v. Schumacher, 131 Wis.2d 332, 337, 388 N.W.2d 912 (1986). Property division is governed by WIS. STAT. § 767.61, which establishes a presumption in favor of equal division of marital property.

  7. Weber v. Walwork

    2015 WI App. 82 (Wis. Ct. App. 2015)

    A discretionary decision will be sustained on appeal if the trial court examined the relevant facts, applied a proper standard of law and, using a rational process, reached a decision that a reasonable judge could reach. Schumacher v. Schumacher, 131 Wis.2d 332, 337, 388 N.W.2d 912 (1986). ¶ 10 Gavin and Erika both requested an unequal division of the marital estate.

  8. IN RE MARRIAGE OF KRUK

    633 N.W.2d 277 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001)

    ¶ 10. Our standard of review for determining the fairness of a property division is whether the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion. Schumacher v. Schumacher, 131 Wis.2d 332, 337, 388 N.W.2d 912 (1986). We will uphold the trial court's determinations on valuation and division as long as "the trial court examined the relevant facts, applied a proper standard of law, and, using a demonstrated rational process, reached a conclusion that a reasonable judge could reach."

  9. Estate of Villella

    No. C7-99-476 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 1999)

    1. Fraud Appellant cites Schumacher v. Schumacher, 388 N.W.2d 912 (Wis. 1986), to argue that she was fraudulently induced to sign the antenuptial agreement. Schumacher found an antenuptial agreement inequitable as a matter of law because the parties did not fairly and reasonably disclose their assets nor did they have independent knowledge of one another's financial status.

  10. Posner v. Posner

    Case No. 94-2180 (Wis. Ct. App. Feb. 27, 1996)

    Further, our standard of review for determining the fairness of a property division is whether the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion. Schumacher v. Schumacher, 131 Wis.2d 332, 337, 388 N.W.2d 912, 914 (1986). Mr. Posner's evidence placed the value of Unit Six at $420,000 to $430,000.