Posted on 05/28/2008 4:18:14 PM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
(High court backs $2,000 a month in divorce case)
A Walworth County woman will have to pay her ex-husband $2,000 a month for the next 10 years, even though he earns $85,000 a year, so that he can continue living the opulent lifestyle the couple shared when they were married, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled.
According to court records:
Tony and Rose Steinmann of Delavan were married in 1994 and divorced a decade later. It was the second marriage for each, and they had no children.
Rose is the sole owner of Dairy Source Inc., a cheese brokerage and distribution company. Tony had worked for the Berner Cheese Corp., which purchased its raw materials from Rose's company. In 1999, he resigned from Berner and took a job with Rose's business.
After they wed, the couple entered into a "limited marital property classification agreement" - a post-nuptial contract that defined what was hers, what was his and what was theirs. The agreement didn't contemplate maintenance - monthly supplemental support payments - in case things didn't work out.
The unimaginable did happen: Tony filed for divorce on Feb. 28, 2003. Two months later, Rose fired him from Dairy Source.
Before the pair wed, they bought a house together in Delavan for $160,000, each contributing to the down payment, according to Friday's Supreme Court decision written by Justice Louis Butler. During the marriage, they purchased several other properties, including a $2.2 million home on Lake Geneva, a waterfront property on Lake Michigan and one on Marco Island, Fla., where they also had two boat slips.
There were lots of toys - an ATV, a fishing boat, jewelry - which were divided without a lot of fanfare. The court ordered the sale of a Corvette, a pontoon boat, and the Marco Island and Lake Michigan lots, with each getting half the proceeds. Walworth County Circuit Judge Michael S. Gibbs also ordered Rose to pay Tony $764,000 for his share of the Lake Geneva property, known as Loramoor.
Rose balked.
She said the court should trace back how much of her money was used in the purchase of the properties before the assets were divvied up. Then there was the sticky matter of $1.35 million that Tony, Rose and Dairy Source got as part of a lawsuit against his former employer. The problem was that no one paid federal taxes on the settlement, and the federal government was seeking $1.78 million for the "deficiency."
Gibbs, who heard the dispute at trial, said:
"While Tony certainly has the means to support himself through his employment ($85,000 yearly salary) the court does not believe this salary can support him at a level reasonably comparable to what he enjoyed during the marriage. It is apparent to the court that the parties enjoyed an opulent lifestyle...the parties flew in DSI's private plane to places like Marco Island, Florida, where they purchased a vacant lot in the expectation of building a retirement or vacation home."
Rose, Gibbs noted, is paid $55,000 a year more than her ex and still enjoys the perks that her company provides.
Justice Annette Ziegler did not participate in the review by the high court. The other justices unanimously agreed with Butler.
I was salivating....
Sorry...
: )
Whats good for the Goose.....
;-)
While I disagree with this...if it’s ok for women then it ought to be ok for guys too.
My only fear is that he’ll leave me...and I’ll be stuck with his smelly hunting dog AND the kids, LOL!
Took the words right out my mouth.
My brother would be smiling. He was forced to pay alimony to his ex wife after a couple years of marriage because of their life style, really her lifestyle, he is a officer in the Navy, no children from the marriage, he paying child support from his first marriage.
I told him he should have shot his attorney
cheeses, give the woman a break.
I just bot a new bow.....
A 2007 AR VELOCITY......
And I now have a Diamond Machete for sale....if you know anyone interested.
Most excellent for him. It wouldn’t be a story at all if it weren’t for the role reversal on gender.
The courts don’t care.
Its called “no fault” Its the law of the land thanks to PC types
Judges dont judge morality.
Women tend to understand it, at least until they are forced to pay for it.
____________________________________
Yep! What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
I am not implying that the man or woman in the article committed adultery, but I’ve seen cases where adultery was involved and the courts didn’t care.
______________________________
In NY, you can’t sue for adultery and it isn’t considered by the court. You can sue for constructive abandonment as a substitute, which is a poor substitute.
As they shouldn’t. They should interpret the law as written.
Short version of long story:
Faithfully paid my X for 10+ years. Joint custody of 1 daughter, 50-50 time. During finals week of the daughters sophmore year in HS, the X decides to throw her out for some horrible sin which I can’t even recall. No big deal, she just moves in with me. I paid 3 more months and when it became clear this was going to last a while longer we agreed to stop the payments.
Fast foward 18 months, all of them with her living with me, and now daughter is about to go to college. X is taking me to mediation for $300 she says I owe her. I point out that according to the law she should have been paying me ~$250/month for the last 18 months. I point out all the expenses I’ve had and that her share is 10x her $300. I inquire about her required savings for daughters college: I have ~$20K, she has $0K. (zero). I suggest she start paying or I’ll be taking HER to court. She said, and I quote: “You ain’t getting a dime.”
I don’t expect anyone to care, I just love telling that story. Thanks.
And thats what they do for the most part.
The law is neither just or moral.
see #37
Give her the 300 and slam the door.
Sounds like the best 300 dollars one could spend in all honesty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.