District Court awards home to husband, orders three months of payments and a 60–40 funds split

The District Court awarded Graham Fenwick the jointly owned home and responsibility for its mortgage, directing Elise Fenwick to leave within three months. In the judgment signed on October 12, 2026, presiding Judge Ryan also ordered Graham to pay Elise $1,200 monthly for three months and divided joint bank funds 60% to Graham and 40% to Elise.

Elise had sought $1,800 monthly temporary maintenance for four months, continued mortgage payments, an accounting of a $12,400 withdrawal and disclosure before further extraordinary transfers. The decision instead gives her a shorter payment period while requiring her to find another home.

The signed judgment states that Elise did not establish that Graham could make the mortgage payments and concludes that she should therefore not receive the home. That stated reason sits uneasily with the order assigning Graham both the home and the mortgage. The judgment does not explain the connection, and its wording cannot be treated as a finding that Elise failed to prove her own ability to pay.

For the bank-account division, Ryan relied on Elise’s statement that she did not earn much money, reasoning that most of the funds would therefore be Graham’s. The judgment supplies no further calculation or account tracing.

Neither spouse provided a reliable annual personal-income figure during questioning. Elise described a $7,200 payment for three months of completed work; Graham reported average monthly workshop receipts of $9,800, operating costs of $6,400 and owner draws of $2,100 over three months.

Elise said she had reduced paid design work to manage the household and unpaid bookings for Graham’s business. She argued that the $7,200 payment was overdue compensation, not dependable income, and that she had no committed follow-on project.

Graham sought to limit maintenance to $600 monthly. He said business receipts were not disposable personal income and that the $12,400 withdrawal covered a supplier deposit and tax and mortgage reserves held in an account Elise could not access.

The spouses also disagreed over their signed interim expense note. Graham understood mortgage payments to count toward support; Elise understood the credit to reduce his property contribution rather than her maintenance.

Elise remained in the jointly owned Madison home after separation, while Graham rented a studio. The monthly mortgage was $1,650, and Elise said Graham had made two payments since they separated.

The signed judgment does not resolve the disputed mortgage credit, expressly address the requested withdrawal accounting or impose a future-transfer disclosure requirement. It also does not explain how the joint-funds division relates to the reserve Graham said he retained.