Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
H and W are both now 50 years old. They sought to end their 20-year marriage by a dissolution petition filed January 21, 1998. The parties have two sons, now ages 13 and 19. H is an attorney in solo practice, and W's master's degree has furthered her career as a second-grade teacher in a suburban school district. They earn about $200,000 and $63,000 per year, respectively. H enjoyed increased, but out-of-the-ordinary, income totaling $335,000 in 1994 and $426,000 in 1996. W has worked as a teacher since 1971, except for a five-year period following the birth of their first son. To say that the parties experienced an affluent lifestyle is an understatement of the facts. At dissolution, the parties had approximately $900,000 in assets, exclusive of the anticipated homestead proceeds. A large percentage of these assets were in retirement accounts; only about twenty percent were easily converted to cash. H and W also borrowed liberally and incurred considerable debt. The parties entered 1999 with more than $100,000 in consumer debt; that figure does not include the mortgage debt or the more than $100,000 in income-tax appellant owed for tax years 1997 and 1998. After debt payments, approximately $ 1.3 million in marital property was distributed nearly equally. The district court awarded W, as nonmarital property, the $35,000 proceeds from the sale of her premarital townhouse. The district court refused, however, to award H appreciation on his premarital Keogh-plan contributions as a nonmarital asset. The district court awarded respondent permanent maintenance of $2,400 per month. H appealed. H argues that W is not a suitable candidate for permanent maintenance because she has had, throughout the 20-year marriage, her own successful career as a teacher and presently earns the top salary in her profession -- more than $ 63,000 annually.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co