Steinbach v. Steinbach

227 N.W. 879, 200 Wis. 208, 1929 Wisc. LEXIS 368
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 3, 1929
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 227 N.W. 879 (Steinbach v. Steinbach) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Steinbach v. Steinbach, 227 N.W. 879, 200 Wis. 208, 1929 Wisc. LEXIS 368 (Wis. 1929).

Opinion

Fowler, J.

No definite rule can be laid down to guide trial courts in dividing the husband’s estate between the parties on final division upon the granting of a divorce. The learned trial judge seems to have assumed that the wife is always entitled to some definite proportion, and that under the circumstances here involved she should receive at least one sixth. This is an erroneous conception. The division is not a problem in fractions. In every case all the circumstances must be considered, including the separate estate of the wife. The question always is, What should the wife receive, under the circumstances, in view of what she already has, and what will remain to the husband after division? We appreciate that there is sometimes a wide latitude between the extremes of allowance and that between these extremes the allowance is in the discretion of the trial judge. However, in view of the special facts that the parties had lived together so short a time, that the wife did not at all assist in the accumulation of the husband’s property, that she had some property of her own, and all the circumstances, we consider that $1,500 is a sufficient allowance in this case. As the general subject of proper awards has been recently considered in Bruhn v. Bruhn, 197 Wis. 358, 222 N. W. 242, and in Kalbakken v. Kalbakken, 199 Wis. 501, 227 N. W. 11, we see no reason for'further discussion here.

[211]*211The rules of the court were disregarded by appellant’s-counsel in preparing both brief and case. No costs will be allowed for their printing, and costs against the respondent will be limited to clerk’s fees.

By the Court. — The judgment of the circuit court is modified by substituting $1,500 instead of $3,300 as the award to the plaintiff, and as so modified is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kronforst v. Kronforst
123 N.W.2d 528 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1963)
Burg v. Burg
85 N.W.2d 356 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1957)
Crawford v. Crawford
176 P.2d 792 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1947)
Polak v. Polak
22 N.W.2d 153 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1946)
Quigley v. Quigley
11 N.W.2d 638 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1943)
Cudahy v. Cudahy
258 N.W. 168 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1935)
Dresser v. Dresser
1933 OK 222 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1933)
Voegeli v. Voegeli
236 N.W. 123 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1931)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
227 N.W. 879, 200 Wis. 208, 1929 Wisc. LEXIS 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steinbach-v-steinbach-wis-1929.