Haugan v. Haugan

343 N.W.2d 796 (1984)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

W and Gordon (H), were married on August 4, 1973. About a month later, H entered medical school, and the wife began gainful employment. Each already had a bachelor's degree. W taught elementary school while H attended medical school in South Dakota and then in Minnesota. W's total earnings of between $ 26,187 and $ 28,974 supported the couple during these four years. H received a stipend of $2,200 and borrowed money to pay education expenses. W continued to teach school for the next three years of their marriage while H, having graduated from medical school, was in a medical residency in Chicago. H's aggregate earnings for that three-year period were between $49,254 and $ 49,548, and W's were between $43,339 and $45,056. W performed virtually all of the household duties over the seven years. In 1980, H and W bought a house in Green Bay, Wisconsin, and W resigned from her teaching job. On May 13, 1980, two months before H completed his medical residency, the couple separated. In August 1980 the husband began practicing pediatric medicine in Green Bay at an annual salary of $48,000 plus bonuses, for a total annual compensation of $55,498. W was unemployed until February 1981, when she began a job with IBM in Green Bay at an annual salary of $19,680. Between August 1980 and August 1981, H voluntarily paid the wife a total of $10,150. The marital expectation was that once H obtained his medical education, H would support W, allowing her to pursue the career of a homemaker, wife, and mother. The trial court concluded that 'no mutuality of such 'contract' had been established' and that the W's expectation was 'not an express or implied contractual arrangement.' There were few assets and substantial liabilities. The trial court divided the parties' assets and debts and denied W’s request for maintenance. W appealed, and the court affirmed. It concluded that the circuit court had not abused its discretion in denying maintenance since W was employed and in good health. W appealed.