In re Marriage of LaRocque – Divorce – Division of Marital Assets
In re Marriage of LaRocque, 139 Wis.2d 23, 406 N.W.2d 736 (1987).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This family law case involved an appeal over a maintenance award.
FACTS: Mr. and Ms. LaRocque were married in 1959 and filed for divorce in 1982. W was 46, H was 48, and only one of their children was still a minor at the time the divorce was granted. W received a bachelor’s degree in psychology in 1959 and during the first two years of marriage held jobs as a secretary, clerk, and teacher. For the remainder of the marriage she worked part time as a substitute teacher but was not certified to teach in a public school at the time of the divorce. During the marriage W raised five children and assisted H in various election campaigns. Her total income from employment outside the marital home was $5,660.
Mr. LaRocque received a law degree in 1962 and worked as a lawyer. He was eventually appointed as a judge to the Appeals court. H’s income was about $50,000 per year at the initiation of the divorce and had increased to $60,000 per year by the time the divorce was granted. His total earnings during marriage totaled over $550,000.
The LaRoque’s did not have substantial marital property and neither spouse brought significant assets with them when they were married. The court divided the property. In awarding maintenance, the court found that W could work as a teacher for an entry-level salary of $12,000 and that this would provide her with a standard of living reasonably comparable to the one she enjoyed during marriage, as the median annual income was just $18,000. The circuit court awarded her maintenance to allow her to obtain her teaching certification to enhance her earning ability. W was awarded $1,500 per month for five months followed by $1,000 per month for an additional 13 months. The court of appeals affirmed and this appeal resulted.
ISSUE: May a court consider capital assets available for liquidation when awarding support and maintenance?
RULE OF LAW: No. A court should not consider capital assets available for liquidation when awarding support and maintenance.
HOLDING AND DECISION: W should not be forced to liquidate her capital to obtain funds to pay living and retraining expenses while H retains his $60,000 a year salary and keeps his retirement fund untouched and secure for his retirement years. The property division should provide W as well as H with a nest egg for retirement or a reserve for emergencies.
The trial court was to consider the feasibility of the party seeking maintenance becoming self-supporting at a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage and the length of time necessary to achieve this goal. The goal of maintenance is to provide support at pre-divorce standards. This goal may require the recipient spouse be awarded maintenance above bare subsistence needs. In this case, while W’s budgets were unchallenged, the court implicitly rejected them and awarded limited term maintenance in an amount less than the lowest monthly budget that was submitted.
The couple’s standard of living should not have been assessed at $20,000. The parties’ annual income had been greater than $20,000 per year for the last 11 years and was $60,000 per year at the time of the divorce. Reasonable maintenance needs to be determined from the lifestyle the parties enjoyed in the years immediately before the divorce. The court did not consider that W had devoted her life to the family over the course of a lengthy marriage. Fairness dictates a starting point of $2,500 per month which is consistent with W’s highest budget figure. Further, the lower court has not explained why the numbers it derived were proper under 767.26 and as such, this was an abuse of discretion. The termination of maintenance after 18 months was also an abuse of discretion.
DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.