Court Opinion

ID: 9739388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:13:55.783025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:11.967935
License: Public Domain

FINE, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part). Although I agree with the majority's resolution of the first issue, I dissent on the second.
Absent "special circumstances" a marital estate is valued as of the date of the divorce. Sommerfield v. Sommerfield, 154 Wis. 2d 840, 851—852, 454 N.W.2d 55, 60 (Ct. App. 1990). The trial court did not find that there were "special circumstances." Yet, in upholding the trial court's decision valuing the parties' respective bank accounts as of the parties' separation date rather than their divorce date, the majority opines that the trial court applied the "special circumstances" test nevertheless. Majority op. at 699. I respectfully disagree. First, the parties agreed via a formal stipulation that each of them would be able to "use" their respective accounts. Thus, the parties intended that each of them would be able to take money from their respective accounts and spend it. Accordingly, the fact that money was taken from each of the accounts cannot constitute "special circumstances." Second, the trial court did not find that Mr. Long had intentionally depleted his *701account beyond his legitimate needs. In my view, the trial court ignored applicable precedent in selecting a valuation date other than the date of divorce. I would reverse on the second issue as well as the first.