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 have never understood this ‘lifestyle to which they had become accustomed’ thing.
Women tend to understand it, at least until they are forced to pay for it.
A gigolo from Wisconsin marries a “cheese millionaire”? You can’t make this stuff up.
Nice to see the gold-digging guy get his for a change.......next time Rose better think twice
Well, the worm has apparently turned...sorry no pity..women do this crap all the time...
Turnabout is fair play. Her “sisters” have been doing this for decades.
Bwhahahahaha!
welcome to the Boy’s Club.
“I have never understood this ‘lifestyle to which they had become accustomed’ thing.”
Especially since it’s so unfair and one way.
Can you imagine a man saying “Well I am used to having sex with this woman 6 times a week so her alimony is to pay me 6 booty calls a week”
It’s the same concept, but will never happen.
“What’s sauce for the goose,” as they say... ;)
An example, my niece (pretty much a loose immoral person who had 2-3 abortions) hooked up with the man of her dreams, a tatooist, they produced a son. When they finally broke up, she sued this loser for child support. Her lawyer went the tried and true way and filed all the conventional motions; his lawyer went on the attack - i.e., "Not only is my client unsure of that this child is his, he is unsure that this child is even HERS!" That takes balls! His lawyer was better. She still hasn't collected a dime.
Equal rights baby!
Thank the NOW hags. They rallied for “uncontested” divorces and “joint property” states.
My husband could be the biggest JERK in the world to me, or I to him, and we still have to split all of our “stuff” 100% equally under Wisconsin law.
So, chose wisely, Grasshopper. :)
Amusing. More anti-marriage pressure. What’s going to happen when polygamy becomes legal?
I want you bows, and your guns...............
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.