He cites no authority for that proposition. In addition, Dean s argument is founded on the unstated assumption that if only Dean requested the property, it must be awarded to him. Because the marital home property was vacant and in poor condition at the time of divorce, and therefore was not an income property, it was reasonable to award this to Kathryn. The court followed her proposal as to the major pieces of real estate. The structure of her proposal and argument suggests that her proposal was to award Dean the properties that would produce the most income, and award the other properties to her. In her post-trial brief, Kathryn asked that this property be awarded to her, but she did not state any reason. Neither party has directed our attention to any explanation by the court for why it awarded this property to Kathryn. Dean argues that he clearly told the circuit court that he wanted to be awarded this property, while Kathryn did not present evidence that she needed or wanted the home, and, therefore, the court should have awarded it to Dean. ♥ Dean next argues that the court erred by awarding what he calls the marital home to Kathryn, although at the time of the divorce judgment neither party was living there.
#Kathryn haas markley arnold wi 2006 trial#
A trial court is not precluded from finding self-serving and after-the-fact testimony credible, and the court in this case specifically stated that it found Kathryn more credible on this issue. Dean argues that Kathryn s testimony was too indirect, selfserving, and after-the-fact to overcome the presumption.
Kathryn concedes that the joint titling creates a presumption that the donors intent was to make a gift to both her and Dean, but it is a presumption that can be overcome. Although Derr involved a possible gift from one spouse to the other, we regard its reasoning as equally applicable to a gift from outside the marriage. We agree with Kathryn s argument that this is not properly viewed as a deed interpretation issue, but as a question of fact about the donors intent, as 1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2003-04 version unless otherwise noted. ♤ Dean argues that the circuit court made an error of law because the deed was unambiguous in conveying the property to both Dean and Kathryn, but the court nevertheless allowed Kathryn to present extrinsic evidence about the donors intent.
The court further found that Kathryn did not see the deed until Dean produced a copy of it during this action, and that Dean has not provided any evidence, apart from the deed prepared by his brother, to establish that the property was not intended for Kathryn alone. ♣ The circuit court found that Kathryn understood the donors intended to gift the property to her but, when the deed was prepared by Dean s brother, both Kathryn and Dean were named as grantees. Dean testified that it was not a gift to only Kathryn, but he did not explain any basis for that opinion. Kathryn testified that her mother and Dean were not close, that the deed was prepared by Dean s brother, who was an attorney, and that she had not seen it until Dean produced a copy during this action. Kathryn testified that it was her understanding that the property was a gift to her, but the court sustained hearsay objections that prevented her from explaining any basis for that understanding. § 767.255(2) (2003-04).1 It is undisputed that the property was quitclaimed by Kathryn s mother and aunt in 1966 to Kathryn and Dean as joint tenants with survivorship. 2005AP1387 ♢ Dean first argues that the circuit court erred by finding that a certain piece of property was gifted to Kathryn individually and, therefore, was her separate, non-divisible property under WIS. Dean Fleming appeals a judgment of divorce from Kathryn Fleming. Before Lundsten, P.J., Deininger and Higginbotham, JJ.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Dane County: STUART A. 2003FA598 2005AP1387 STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT IV IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: KATHRYN R. A party may file with the Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of Appeals. If published, the official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals Appeal No. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED SeptemCornelia G.
0 kommentar(er)
