IN RE MARRIAGE OF McLAREN v. McLaren, 02-2451.
Decision Date | 14 May 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 02-2451.,02-2451. |
Citation | 2003 WI App 125,265 Wis.2d 529,665 N.W.2d 405 |
Parties | IN RE the MARRIAGE OF: Mary Patricia McLAREN, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Sean Robert McLAREN, Respondent-Appellant. |
Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the respondent-appellant, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Teri M. Nelson of Harris, Nelson & Zaeske, LLP, Wauwatosa.
On behalf of the petitioner-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Therese M. Henke of Law Office of Therese M. Henke, Mequon.
Before Brown, Anderson and Snyder, JJ.
¶ 1.
Sean Robert McLaren (Sean) appeals from a judgment of divorce determining that the student loans incurred by Mary Patricia McLaren (Patricia), Sean's former wife, were marital debt. Sean argues that the trial court erred in equally dividing Patricia's student loans and that an unequal property division should have been granted for his contributions towards Patricia's education. Sean also argues that the trial court erred when it failed to deviate from the percentage standards for child support yet ordered him to pay half of the children's daycare expenses in addition to the child support. We agree with the trial court that Patricia's student loans were marital debt. However, we conclude that the trial court erred when it purported to apply the percentage standards yet additionally ordered Sean to pay half of the children's daycare expenses. We therefore affirm that portion of the judgment addressing Patricia's student loans and reverse that portion of the judgment addressing child support and daycare expenses and remand it to the trial court to readdress the issue of child support.
¶ 2. Sean and Patricia were married on October 26, 1991. Two children were born during the marriage, Kelsey in March 1992 and Kyle in August 1994. On April 17, 2001, Patricia filed for divorce.
¶ 3. Sean and Patricia executed a partial Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA); the unresolved issues left for trial included property division and the division of marital debt. In addition, the primary child support issues left for trial were whether the trial court should deviate from the child support percentage guidelines and whether Sean should be ordered to pay a contribution towards the children's daycare expenses.
¶ 4. In determining the division of marital debts and assets, the trial court included all of Patricia's student loans in the marital estate. At the time of trial, Patricia's financial disclosure statement indicated her student loans totaled $25,905.83. The MSA stipulated and the trial court required that Patricia pay the student loans; however, to equalize the marital estate, the trial court ordered Sean to pay the parties' marital consolidation loan through Allco Credit Union.
¶ 5. The trial court also indicated that it would not deviate from the child support percentage guidelines amount of 25% of Sean's gross monthly income. However, the trial court indicated that in addition to the 25% of his gross monthly income, Sean was required to contribute to one-half of the children's daycare expenses. On August 29, 2002, a judgment of divorce was entered. Sean appeals from the portion of the judgment declaring Patricia's student loans part of the marital estate and from the portion of the judgment requiring him to pay 25% of his gross monthly income in addition to one-half of the children's daycare expenses.
¶ 6. Sean argues that the bulk of Patricia's student loans were premarital, that he received no benefit from the loans, that he derived no benefit from Patricia's education and that the trial court erred by including all of the student loans in the marital estate and failing to order that Patricia be solely responsible for the loans. We reject both Sean's characterization of the facts and his legal conclusions.
¶ 7. First, in the MSA, Sean and Patricia stipulated that Patricia was solely responsible for the student loans and the trial court so ordered. However, to offset that allocation and equalize the debt of the marital estate, the trial court ordered Sean solely responsible for payment of the marital consolidation loan through Allco Credit Union. It is this allocation that Sean actually challenges. [1-3]
¶ 8. Marital assets and debts (collectively, the marital estate) include all of the property and obligations of either party which were acquired before or during the marriage unless specifically exempted by statute. See WIS. STAT. § 767.255 (2001-02).1 The division of the marital estate lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. See Long v. Long, 196 Wis. 2d 691, 695, 539 N.W.2d 462 (Ct. App. 1995)
. We must sustain discretionary determinations if we find that 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. Id.
Id. The trial court need not consider all of these factors. Arneson v. Arneson, 120 Wis. 2d 236, 254, 355 N.W.2d 16 (Ct. App. 1984).
¶ 10. Here, the trial court explained why it included the student loans as marital debt:
¶ 11. The trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
IN RE MARRIAGE OF DERR v. Derr
...general rule is that assets and debts acquired by either party before or during the marriage are divisible upon divorce. See McLaren v. McLaren, 2003 WI App 125, ¶ 8, 265 Wis. 2d 529, 665 N.W.2d 405. There is a statutory exception for property acquired (1) by gift, (2) by reason of death, o......
-
Osdoba v. Kelley-Osdoba
...in the property division as more income was pledged to savings, investments, and other accounts. See McLaren v. McLaren , 265 Wis.2d 529, 665 N.W.2d 405, 408–09 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003) (finding no abuse of discretion in including student loans in marital estate because premarital and marital l......
-
IN RE MARRIAGE OF WEILER v. Boerner, 03-2606.
...and obligations of either party which were acquired before or during the marriage unless specifically exempted by statute." McLaren v. McLaren, 2003 WI App 125, ¶ 8, 265 Wis. 2d 529, 665 N.W.2d 405. In McLaren, we held that the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it......
-
Rock County Child Support v. Martin P.S. (In re Paternity of M.R.K.), 2014AP745.
...review a circuit court's decisions as to child support, contempt, and attorney fees for an erroneous exercise of discretion. McLaren v. McLaren, 2003 WI App 125, ¶ 13, 265 Wis.2d 529, 665 N.W.2d 405 (child support); Benn v. Benn, 230 Wis.2d 301, 308, 602 N.W.2d 65 (Ct.App.1999) (contempt); ......