Trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in denying motion to reopen judgment where father was served with while incarcerated, was not represented by an attorney, mother committed perjury about parentage and father never had an opportunity for a full and fair determination of paternity.
Trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in declining to reopen judgment where after the divorce, the employer (Milwaukee County) modified pension payout terms through a “backdrop” lump sum payment. The judgment was not ambiguous, there was no mutual mistake or fraud. The backdrop was an unanticipated windfall.
Court did not err in denying relief from judgment where it found wife entered in stipulations knowingly and with understanding.
Although circuit court erred in declaring Dusty to be a legal parent by approving agreement under §891.40, motion to hold order void under §806.07(1)(d) was improperly granted. (Not published, but citeable)
Discovery of financial records after divorce did not entitle husband to relief from judgement as he was not diligent in seeking the documents. In addition, the material was not material as it did not prove that the accounts were gifted to him.
Articles from scholarly/legal journals on electronic eavesdropping and divorce.
No husband-wife exception to the federal wiretap laws.
Accessing wife’s email was not an unlawful interception of communications under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Cite 72 Wis. 2d 711, 242 N.W.2d 184 (1976) Summary If an oral communication is lawfully intercepted because of the consent of a party to the conversation, but is otherwise inadmissible into evidence in a criminal prosecution due to a failure to comply with statutory requirements, such deficiency does not require the additional suppression of…
No error for trial court to fail to award wife interest on pre- and post- trial earnings of the fund from the date of valuation, where the result was a significant tax savings to her.