Opinion ID: 1279369
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the trial court abuse its discretion in failing to make the property division in kind?

Text: Mr. Jost argues that the trial court abused its discretion in not making an in kind distribution of the Tolley stock, instead of a monetary award to Mrs. Jost. We find no merit in this argument. Had the trial court known of the existence of the shares at the time of the divorce, it could have ordered an in kind division of the asset. However, the shares remaining after the sale of December 20, 1972 had either been sold or encumbered at the time of the hearing. Mr. Jost testified that the remaining shares no longer bore a restrictive legend. He also testified that he had sold 1,300 of the shares, and had pledged the balance of his shares as collateral on a debt owed to First Wisconsin National Bank for a $160,000 home. [4] There was no abuse of discretion in making a monetary award to Mrs. Jost. [5] The parties stipulated that the trial court should determine responsibility for a medical bill presented by a doctor for services provided for the minor son. The trial court took testimony from Mr. Jost to the effect that he did not believe that he was responsible for the bill since it was not covered by his medical insurance. The trial court considered the respective incomes of the parties, and found that Mr. Jost should be responsible for the bill. There was no abuse of discretion by the trial court in so ordering. Issues raised by Respondent in her brief will not be considered because she failed to serve a notice of review as required by sec. 817.12, Stats., 1975. By the Court. Judgment affirmed. COFFEY, J., took no part.