Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

03-2646 Rumpf v. Rumpf

By: dmc-admin//September 13, 2004//

03-2646 Rumpf v. Rumpf

By: dmc-admin//September 13, 2004//

Listen to this article

“We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Timothy has not demonstrated that the Monday and Tuesday placement until 7:00 p.m. constitutes equivalent care. If the DWD had intended an evening meal to equate to an overnight equivalent, it could have advised as much in a note to this section.

“Instead, as the note to Wis. Admin. Code sec. 40.02(25) indicates, equivalent care must be something of substance. Timothy’s provision of an evening meal on days he has the children until 7:00 p.m. does not rise to the level of care envisioned by the DWD.”

In addition, although there was no expert testimony regarding any potential tax consequences, the trial court did not err in reducing the value of the wife’s pension plan by twenty percent to reflect likely tax consequences in making its property division under Wis. Stat. sec. 767.255(3)(k).

“The trial court reduced the value of Amy’s retirement assets by twenty percent to reflect potential tax consequences and arrive at a fair representation of the present value of Amy’s pension plan. In the absence of any expert testimony or other evidence to the contrary, the court may rely on its knowledge and experience to engage in reasonable speculation regarding the anticipated tax impact on the present value of retirement assets.

“And, even though the trial court refused to credit the husband’s payments he made toward the mortgage and contributions to his 401(k) plan during the pendency of the divorce, there was no error because the mortgage payments were in lieu of rent and he was ordered to pay the mortgage because he continued to live in the residence. Further, the husband’s 401(k) contributions were voluntary and that asset was subject to division at the time of the divorce, not at the time of the separation.”

Judgment affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist. II, Manitowoc County, Deets, J., Snyder, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: James R. Ungrodt, Kiel

For Respondent: Lee H. Kummer, Manitowoc; Travis K. Glandt, Manitowoc

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests