2009AP3206 Drew v. Drew

Listen to this article

Family
Marital property; valuation

Dawn Drew appeals and Shawn Drew cross-appeals from the part of a judgment of divorce that divided the parties’ marital property.  Dawn argues that the circuit court erred when it admitted into evidence the deposition testimony of two of Shawn’s experts.  She also argues that the court erred when it prohibited her from calling an expert rebuttal witness.  Shawn argues in the cross-appeal that the circuit court erred when it did not include all of Dawn’s retirement account in the property division and when it determined the value of Shawn’s business to be $35,000.  We conclude that the circuit court did not err when it allowed Shawn to use the deposition testimony or when it refused to allow Dawn to call a rebuttal witness.  However, we conclude that the circuit court did not properly exercise its discretion when it valued either
Dawn’s retirement account or Shawn’s business.  Affirmed in part, and Reversed in part. This opinion will not be published.

2009AP3206 Drew v. Drew

Dist. IV, Marquette County, Wright, J., Per Curiam.

Attorneys: for Petitioner: Fred D. Hollenbeck, III, Andrea Van Hoff, Mauson; For Respondent: Paul D. Polacek, Wisconsin Dells

Full Text