Parsons v. Parsons
| Decision Date | 03 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 411,411 |
| Citation | 68 Wis.2d 744,229 N.W.2d 629 |
| Parties | William B. PARSONS, Jr., Respondent, v. Lois W. PARSONS, Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
This is a divorce action. It was commenced by Dr. William B. Parsons on May 1, 1972. Lois W. Parsons answered the complaint and counterclaimed. The plaintiff withdrew his complaint. Mrs. Parsons was granted a divorce on grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment.
The parties were married on September 22, 1945. Dr. Parsons was a sophomore in medical school and Mrs. Parsons was a senior in college. Mrs. Parsons worked full time after completing college to help support them until their first child was born in July, 1950. They have three children, two of whom are self-supporting. The other, at the time of judgment, was age twelve.
At the time of trial, Dr. Parsons was 48 years old and Mrs. Parsons was 47 years old.
The court entered its judgment on October 5, 1973, awarding custody of the minor child to Mrs. Parsons, requiring Dr. Parsons to pay $350 per month support money and $800 per month alimony and dividing the property. A $400 contribution towards Mrs. Parsons' attorney's fees was allowed by previous order of the court.
In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, dated October 4, 1973, the trial court found that the parties possessed the following property with the given value:
1. Residence at 4824 Sherwood Rd
Madison, Wisconsin
Gross value: $ 75,000
Mortgage: 43,000 $ 31,944.00
2. Furnishings of above residence
Furniture and furnishings: 6,000.00
Art objects 1,642.00
3. 1967 Buick automobile 975.00
4. 1968 Buick automobile 1,250.00
5. Bank and Savings and Loan
Accounts
Bank of Madison, checking,
(Dr. Parsons) $ 111.60
Anchor Savings & Loan
Assn.-Savings (Dr.
Parsons) 13,970.00
Home Savings & Loan
Assn.-Savings (joint) 8,444.00
Anchor Savings & Loan
Assn.-Savings (Mrs.
Parsons) 308.19
First Wisconsin National
Bank of Madison, checking
(Mrs. Parsons) 1,014.15
Anchor Savings & Loan
Assn.-Savings (joint) 3,354.00
----------
$ 27,201.94
6. Stocks and Mutual Funds:
DeVegh (36.859 shares) $ 2,656.80
Johnston (419.974
shares) 12,628.62
T. Rowe Price
(344.46 shares) 11,498.07
Proceeds of Energy Fund 2,196.01
----------
$ 28,979.50
7. Photo Equipment:
Dr. Parsons 570.00
Mrs. Parsons 260.00
8. Insurance (cash value) 7,270.00
9. Art objects (Doctors Parsons) 110.00
10. Jackson Clinic Investments
(Dr. Parsons)
Jackson Clinic Chartered
partnership stock No value
Jackson Clinic Building
Corporation stock, net
value 4,500.00
Retirement Trust, net value 39,495.00
11. Refund of 1972, income
taxes overpaid 4,129.25
-----------
Total Estate (less Jackson
Clinic Stock) $154,326.69
Less 1972 net Wisconsin and
Federal income tax liability
of the parties 3,250.75
-----------
NET TOTAL ESTATE $151,075.94
The court also found that, for 1970--1972, Doctor Parsons' average gross annual income was $55,287.00 and his average net annual income after taxes was $37,833.00 and that the defendant has no income.
On the basis of these findings, the trial court divided the estate as follows:
To Mrs. Parsons:
1. The residence at 4824 Sherwood
Rd. $31,944.00
2. Furnishings, furniture and equipment
for residence, excluding art objects
valued at $1,642.00 6,000.00
3. All of her personal wearing apparel,
jewelry and effects No value
4. 1967 Buick station wagon 975.00
5. Photo Equipment 260.00
6. Bank and Savings Accounts:
Anchor Savings & Loan Assn., savings 308.19
First Wisconsin National Bank of
Madison, checking 1,014.15
7. Mutual Funds:
De Vegh (16.648 shares) 1,200.00
Johnston (39.907 shares) 1,200.00
T. Rowe Price (35.950 shares) 1,200.00
8. Cash to be paid by Doctor
Parsons 3,900.00
9. One-third (1/3) of 1972 income
tax refund 1,376.42
10. One-third of the proceeds of Jackson
Clinic, Chartered stock, when received
by Doctor Parsons to be protected by
an assignment by him to Mrs. Parsons
of such one-third interest No value
----------
TOTAL AWARD TO MRS. PARSONS $49,377.76
Dr. Parsons was ordered to pay all debts of the parties incurred prior to the commencement of this action, except the mortgage balance on the residence; maintain hospital and medical insurance naming the minor daughter as an insured; and maintain in full force life insurance in the face amount of $50,000.00 naming Mrs. Parsons and their daughter as primary beneficiaries in the amount of $25,000 each.
On November 14, 1973, the court issued an order after a petition for relief by Mrs. Parsons under Sec. 247.39, Stats., requiring Dr. Parsons to make the payments for support and alimony and the payment of $2,000 to Mrs. Parsons' appellate counsel as contribution toward her attorney's fees and the costs and disbursements for taking an appeal.
Additional facts will be stated in the opinion.
Bruce Gillman, Arthur, Tomlinson, Gillman & Travers, S.C., Madison, for appellant.
Wheeler, Van Sickle, Day & Anderson, Madison, for respondent.
Three issues are presented on this appeal:
1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in the property award to Mrs. Parsons?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in the alimony award to Mrs. Parsons?
3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying further contribution to Mrs. Parsons' attorney's fees?
Mrs. Parsons contends that she is entitled to a larger share of the division of the estate than was awarded to her by the trial court. She received approximately 32 per cent of the total estate. It is contended that the real test on appeal is not abuse of discretion, but rather fairness and uniformity.
This court has repeatedly stated that the division of property is a matter of discretion for the trial court. Jordan v. Jordan (1969), 44 Wis.2d 471, 474, 171 N.W.2d 385; Leeder v. Leeder (1970), 46 Wis.2d 464, 468, 175 N.W.2d 262; and Markham v. Markham (1974), 65 Wis.2d 735, 748, 223 N.W.2d 616. In Jordan v. Jordan, supra, 44 Wis.2d page 474, 171 N.W.2d page 387, it was said:
However, in Leeder v. Leeder, supra, this court said:
246 Wis.2d pp. 468, 469, 175 N.W.2d p. 264.
Before reaching the merits of Mrs. Parsons' contention that she is entitled to a larger share of the estate, it is necessary to consider Dr. Parsons' contention that the trial court did not properly determine the value of the estate. This argument is made in an effort to show that Mrs. Parsons actually received more than one-third of the estate under the trial court's award.
The court, in determining the amounts in the savings accounts of the parties basically used the amounts in those accounts at the time of the commencement of the action except for $2,000 used to pay taxes. Between that time and the time of trial, the amounts in those accounts were reduced by over $23,000. Dr. Parsons had purchased a 1972 Buick at a cost of $5,242.00, furnishings for his apartment at a cost of $5,451.00 and paid $5,000 to his mother. Doctor Parsons, in his brief, recognizes that $18,047.56 was spent on such expenditures. He also spent between $1,000 and $1,500 for a vacation to Arizona and used other moneys for various expenses incurred by himself and his family. The property purchased was not included in the estate although Dr. Parsons testified that the furnishings had a value of $3,000, in his opinion, and it was stipulated that the 1972 Buick had a 'blue book' value of $3,600.
In its written decision on May 21, 1973, the trial court explained why it used the original amounts in these accounts:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bussewitz v. Bussewitz
...shown. Greco v. Greco, 73 Wis.2d 220, 243 N.W.2d 465 (1976); Czaicki v. Czaicki, 73 Wis.2d 9, 242 N.W.2d 214 (1976); Parsons v. Parsons, 68 Wis.2d 744, 229 N.W.2d 629 (1975); Markham v. Markham, 65 Wis.2d 735, 223 N.W.2d 616 (1974); Leeder v. Leeder, 46 Wis.2d 464, 175 N.W.2d 262 (1970). An......
-
DeWitt v. DeWitt, 78-925
...values of such interests. Bloomer, by reversing a trial court's valuation of a pension under the rule set forth in Parsons v. Parsons, 68 Wis.2d 744, 229 N.W.2d 629 (1975), allows a trial court to divide property the court expects a party to acquire after the date of his or her divorce:If t......
-
Leighton v. Leighton
...15 Wis.2d 245, 248, 112 N.W.2d 584 (1961); Pinkowski v. Pinkowski, 67 Wis.2d 176, 179, 226 N.W.2d 518 (1975); Parsons v. Parsons, 68 Wis.2d 744, 752, 753, 229 N.W.2d 629 (1975); Johnson v. Johnson, supra, n. 15, at 143, 254 N.W.2d 198.20 Id. at 170, 171, 87 N.W.2d 803.21 Id. at 171, 87 N.W.......
-
Anderson v. Anderson
...See: Husting v. Husting (1972), 54 Wis.2d 87, 194 N.W.2d 801; Balaam v. Balaam (1971), 52 Wis.2d 20, 187 N.W.2d 867; Parsons v. Parsons (1975), 68 Wis.2d 744, 229 N.W.2d 629.5 See: Kronforst v. Kronforst (1963), 21 Wis.2d 54, 123 N.W.2d 528; Wahl v. Wahl (1968), 39 Wis.2d 510, 159 N.W.2d 65......
-
What's So Special About Special Proceedings? Making Sense of Nebraska's Final Order Statute
...Thrift Mart, Inc. v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 251 Neb. 448, 453, 558 N.W.2d 531, 535 (1997); Shinn v. Shinn, 148 Neb. 833, 840-41, 229 N.W.2d 629, 633 (1947). 49. Rhen v. Bingaman, 157 Neb. 467, 481, 59 N.W.2d 614, 621-22 (1953) (Boslaugh, J., concurring) (emphasis added). 50. Jarrett,......