McReath v. McReath
Wisconsin Supreme Court
800 N.W.2d 399 (2011)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Tracy McReath (plaintiff) filed a petition for divorce from Tim McReath (defendant) after approximately 19 years of marriage and the birth of three children. Tracy was a high-school graduate and held a few jobs from time to time, but was mainly a homemaker and caretaker of the children. Three years into the marriage, Tim received a dental degree and then a master’s degree in orthodontia. Tim worked as an associate at Orthodontic Specialists (OS) under the mentorship of Dr. Grady for two years. Thereafter, Tim purchased OS and its two locations for $930,000, which consisted of $100,000 for the physical assets and the business name and $830,000 for the goodwill generated by Dr. Grady; a non-complete clause Dr. Grady signed as part of the sale; and a temporary employment agreement with Dr. Grady to stay on and assist with the transition of the business. Tim reasoned that, without the non-compete clause, Dr. Grady could have opened up another dental practice nearby and resumed the same level of business that Dr. Grady had enjoyed. With the exception of OS, Tracy and Tim agreed to the value and division of the marital assets. After several hearings, the trial court valued OS at $1,058,000 and included OS as a marital asset subject to division. Based on the substantial discrepancy between Tim’s assets and Tracy’s assets, the trial court awarded Tracy a sum of nearly $800,000 and spousal support of $16,000 per month for 20 years. Tim appealed. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin granted certiorari to review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Roggensack, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.