03-3356 Woodward v. Woodward

Listen to this article

“In this case, Pam’s testimony showed that during at least part of the pendency of the divorce, and up to and including the time of the trial, she benefited from her boyfriend’s income. For example, Pam testified that her boyfriend’s military income was automatically deposited into a joint account from which Pam paid ‘our bills’ and rent. The circuit court disregarded the financial benefit Pam received from her relationship because it was a recently commenced, non-marital relationship that could terminate at any time. …

“First, as explained in paragraph six above, the general rule is that maintenance decisions should be based on the parties’ financial circumstances at the time the maintenance determination is made. In this case, Pam was receiving a financial benefit from her cohabitation relationship at the time of the divorce trial.

“Second, a financial benefit flowing from cohabitation is an appropriate maintenance consideration. In the maintenance modification context, it is well established that courts, in determining whether to modify maintenance, must consider the effects of a recipient’s cohabitation arrangement on the recipient’s financial condition.”

Reversed and remanded.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Juneau County, Schuh, J., Lundsten, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Daniel M. Berkos, Mauston

For Respondent: Fred D. Hollenbeck III, Mauston; Pammy L. Woodard, New Lisbon