In re Marriage of LaRocque,
406 N.W.2d 736 (Wis. 1987).

Procedure: Petitioner husband sought review of a decision by the Court of Appeals (Wisconsin), which reversed an order that limited the duration of a maintenance award to respondent wife. The wife sought review of the amount of the award.


Facts: Daniel and Rosalie LaRocque were married in 1959 and filed for divorce in 1982. Their divorce was granted in 1984. One of their five children was still a minor in 1984. Daniel was a judge of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, earning $60,000 per year. Rosalie's prin¬cipal occupation during the marriage was that of a full-time housewife and mother. In awarding maintenance the trial court determined that Rosalie could work as an elementary school teacher upon certi¬fication, at an entry level salary of $12,000 per year and a future earning capacity of $25,000 per year. The court ordered limited main¬tenance of $1,500 monthly for five months and $1,000 monthly for 13 months. The court of appeals affirmed the amount of the award and reversed the termination of the award as an abuse of discretion. The parties appeal.

Issue: May a court consider capital assets available for liquidation when awarding support and maintenance?

Rule: A court should not consider capital assets available for liquidation when awarding support and maintenance

Holding: Yes. Judgment of trial court reversed and remanded. In determining and reviewing a maintenance award, the trial court must apply the statutory factors. The factors reflect and further two distinct objectives in the award of maintenance: (i) the support objective (to support the recipient spouse in accor-dance with the needs and earning capacities of the parties), and (ii) the fairness objective (to ensure a fair and equitable financial arrangement between the parties).

Analysis: The husband and wife were divorced after 25 years of marriage. The trial court awarded the wife limited term maintenance of $ 1,500 per month for five months and $ 1,000 per month for 13 months. The wife sought review. The court of appeals affirmed the amount of the award, but reversed the order that limited its duration. Both parties sought review. The court affirmed the judgment that reversed the duration order, but reversed the judgment that affirmed the amount. The court noted that under Wis. Stat. § 767.26 (1985-86), a trial court making a maintenance award and an appellate court reviewing the award were required to consider nine factors, including basic fairness. The court found that the trial court did not give proper consideration to the factors. For example, the court said, the trial court found that the wife could become self-supporting as a teacher in 18 months. However, that decision did not take into account whether the wife wanted to become a teacher and whether she would have been able to secure a teaching position. Additionally, the court said, the trial court's decision did not consider the couple's income in the years immediately preceding the divorce.