## Facts

- Daniel L. LaRocque, an attorney who later became a judge, earned about $60,000 annually.
- Rosalie E. LaRocque held a bachelor’s degree in psychology, worked intermittently, and primarily served as homemaker and caregiver for the parties’ five minor children.
- The parties were married for approximately 13 years and maintained a relatively comfortable marital standard of living based on Daniel’s income.
- The circuit court entered a divorce judgment dividing property and awarding Rosalie the marital home and various personal property, with Rosalie bearing repair and sale-related expenses.
- The circuit court awarded Rosalie limited-term maintenance: $1,500 per month for 5 months, then $1,000 per month for 13 months, terminating after 18 months based on an expectation Rosalie could obtain teacher certification and earn about $12,000 per year within that period.
- After judgment, the circuit court denied Rosalie’s motion to revise maintenance and awarded her only about 20% of her appellate attorney’s fees.
- The court of appeals affirmed the maintenance amount but reversed the 18-month termination as an erroneous exercise of discretion.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reviewed the maintenance ruling and also addressed the post-judgment attorney-fee order.

## Issues

1. Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in setting both the amount and duration of maintenance.
2. Whether the circuit court properly considered the statutory maintenance factors and provided a reasoned explanation linking facts and law to the maintenance order.
3. Whether the circuit court’s limited contribution to Rosalie’s appellate attorney’s fees was consistent with fairness and the parties’ relative financial ability.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court held the circuit court erroneously exercised discretion in setting both the amount and duration of maintenance.
- The Court rejected an approach that effectively treated maintenance as short-term rehabilitation to minimal self-support without adequate consideration of the marital standard of living, the length of the marriage, and role-based earning disparities.
- The Court remanded for reconsideration of maintenance under a reasoned, factor-based analysis consistent with maintenance’s support and fairness objectives.
- The Court directed reconsideration of the limited award of appellate attorney’s fees under the same fairness and relative-ability principles.

## Legal Principles

- Maintenance determinations are discretionary, but discretion must be exercised through a reasoned process grounded in the record and governing law; conclusory statements are insufficient.
- A court need not mechanically recite each statutory factor, but it must show it considered the relevant factors and explain how they justify the amount and duration selected.
- Maintenance serves two objectives: (1) support based on the parties’ needs and earning capacities, and (2) fairness through equitable financial arrangements between spouses.
- When feasible given the payor’s ability to pay, support should reflect the marital (pre-divorce) standard of living, not merely subsistence.
- In longer marriages with substantial role differentiation (wage earner and homemaker), fairness may warrant more substantial and longer maintenance than a short, time-limited award tied to optimistic near-term employment projections.
- Awards relating to attorney’s fees in divorce litigation should be guided by fairness and the parties’ relative financial resources.

## Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court required maintenance orders to pursue both support and fairness, measured against the marital standard of living where possible, and to be justified by an articulated, factor-based rationale; it reversed the limited, time-limited maintenance award and ordered reconsideration of maintenance and appellate fee contribution on remand.


In re Marriage of LaRocque, 406 N.W.2d 736 (Wis. 1987)