Marriage of McReath v. McReath, 800 N.W.2d 399

Tracy and Tim McReath divorced; court divided marital assets and awarded Tracy maintenance.
Tim owned Orthodontic Specialists, S.C., valued by the circuit court at $1,058,000 for property division.
Tim bought Orthodontic Specialists for about $930,000; purchase included substantial goodwill (Dr. Grady’s name, noncompete, etc.).
Court treated the salable professional goodwill as part of the marital estate and equalized assets by awarding Tracy $796,720.
Maintenance was set at $16,000 per month for 20 years, based on Tim’s earnings from Orthodontic Specialists and Tracy’s earning capacity.
Tim argued that the entire goodwill was nondivisible and that maintenance based on future earnings double-counted goodwill; the court rejected these arguments and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether salable professional goodwill must be included as divisible property	Tim contends personal goodwill is nondivisible and should be excluded.	Tracy argues salable goodwill is divisible property under § 767.61.	Entire salable goodwill properly included in marital estate.
Whether maintenance calculation double-counted goodwill	Tim asserts maintenance used earnings increased by goodwill counted as asset value, amounting to double counting.	Tracy maintains maintenance uses income-producing asset principles; not double counting.	No improper double counting; maintenance based on Tim's earnings from the asset is permissible.
Standards and approach for valuing professional goodwill and maintenance interplay	Tim urged split between personal vs enterprise goodwill and alternative methods to avoid double counting.	Court adopted approach treating salable goodwill as divisible, with no rigid dual-classification rule.	Court allowed salable goodwill as divisible without requiring separate subcategories; statutory factors govern maintenance.

Spheeris v. Spheeris, 37 Wis. 2d 497 (Wis. 1967) (recognized goodwill as divisible asset; value may be computed without a sale)
Holbrook v. Holbrook, 103 Wis. 2d 327 (Wis. Ct. App. 1981) (professional goodwill may be nonmarketable; distinction with salable value discussed)
Peerenboom v. Peerenboom, 147 Wis. 2d 547 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988) (dental practice goodwill may be divisible if salable; distinguishes Holbrook)
Sommerfield v. Sommerfield, 154 Wis. 2d 840 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990) (upheld consideration of goodwill in practice valuation with noncompete context)
Kronforst v. Kronforst, 21 Wis. 2d 54 (Wis. 1963) (double-counting rule foundational; asset vs income distinction in maintenance)
Pelot v. Pelot, 116 Wis. 2d 339 (Wis. Ct. App. 1983) (pension asset value vs income for maintenance; double-counting flexibility noted)
Olski v. Olski, 197 Wis. 2d 237 (Wis. 1995) (present value of pension and future payments interplay with maintenance)
Cook v. Cook, 208 Wis. 2d 166 (Wis. 1997) (flexible treatment of Kronforst double-counting in varied fact patterns)