Marriage of Haugan v. Haugan
117 Wis. 2d 200, 343 N.W.2d 796, 1984 Wisc. LEXIS 2303 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A spouse who supports the other spouse through professional education is entitled to fair compensation for their financial and non-financial contributions to the other's increased earning capacity upon divorce. This compensation can be awarded through property division, maintenance payments, or both, even if the supporting spouse is not in financial need.
Facts:
- Patricia and Gordon Haugan married in August 1973, when both had bachelor's degrees.
- For the first four years of the marriage, Patricia Haugan worked as an elementary school teacher, and her earnings supported the couple while Gordon Haugan attended medical school.
- For the next three years, Patricia Haugan continued to work as a teacher while Gordon Haugan completed his medical residency, during which time she also performed virtually all household duties.
- Patricia Haugan testified that she and her husband shared the expectation that she would support him during his education, and he would then support her as a homemaker.
- In 1980, in anticipation of Gordon Haugan starting his medical practice, the couple bought a house and Patricia Haugan resigned from her teaching job.
- The couple separated in May 1980, approximately two months before Gordon Haugan completed his medical residency.
- Following the separation, Gordon Haugan began practicing medicine with a total annual compensation of $55,498, while Patricia Haugan eventually found a job earning $19,680 annually.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Haugan and Gordon Haugan were granted a judgment of divorce in the circuit court for Brown County (trial court).
- The circuit court divided the marital property and denied Patricia Haugan's request for maintenance payments.
- Patricia Haugan (appellant) appealed the property division and denial of maintenance to the court of appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court.
- The Supreme Court of Wisconsin granted review of the court of appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by failing to adequately compensate a spouse for their contributions to the other spouse's medical education and training when dividing property and denying maintenance upon divorce?
Opinions:
Majority - Shirley S. Abrahamson
Yes, the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to adequately compensate the wife. A supporting spouse is entitled to be fairly compensated for contributions to the student spouse's enhanced earning capacity, and it is an error to deny maintenance solely on the basis of the supporting spouse's lack of financial need. The court reasoned that in a 'university degree-divorce decree' case where the marriage ends before the economic benefits of the degree are realized, it is unfair to deny the supporting spouse a share in the anticipated enhanced earnings. Citing Wisconsin statutes, the court found that contributions to a spouse's education are a specific factor to be considered in both property division and maintenance. The trial court's award, which effectively relieved the wife of approximately $14,000 in marital debt, was clearly inadequate compensation for her seven years of financial and non-financial support.
Concurring - William J. Callow
Yes, the lower court's decision should be reversed, but one of the majority's suggested valuation methods is improper. The concurring opinion agrees that the wife was inadequately compensated and the case should be remanded. However, it disapproves of the majority's third suggested approach for calculating an award, which is based on the present value of the student spouse's future enhanced earning capacity. The author argues this method is too speculative, as it relies on unforeseen future events, and goes beyond compensating for actual sacrifices made during the marriage, which was the principle established in prior cases like Lundberg and Roberto.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the legal principle that a supporting spouse has a right to be compensated for their investment in the other spouse's professional degree upon divorce. It clarifies that such compensation is not based on need, but on fairness and equity, recognizing the degree as a significant, though intangible, product of the marital partnership. By providing several flexible valuation methods—including restitution and return-on-investment concepts—the court equips lower courts with tools to handle 'degree-divorce' scenarios, significantly influencing how enhanced earning capacity is treated in divorce proceedings.
