Conrad v. Conrad
Trial court should have reopened divorce judgment where she did not understand the terms of the stipulation.
Trial court should have reopened divorce judgment where she did not understand the terms of the stipulation.
Lifetime maintenance provision of divorce judgment does not violate public policy because the husband agreed to it and he is estopped from contesting it.
Legislature, in enacting §767.863(1m), did not intend to allow parties to circumvent a court’s authority to dismiss paternity actions at the initial stage of the proceeding based on the child’s best interest by obtaining genetic testing without court approval.
Dismissal of action seeking genetic testing can be without prejudice.
Under PKPA, jurisdiction in Iowa continues as long as Iowa has jurisdiction under Iowa law, Iowa remains residence of children or of any contestant or Iowa declines to exercise its discretion. PKPA prefers the state which made original decree.
Multiple issues. See summary.
Because husband had actual notice of the divorce hearing (even subpoenaing his wife to trial and requesting an adjournment), failure to serve an order for appearance was harmless. The trial court could properly proceed with the trial because the husband deliberately chose not to appear.
Factors to consider in an ownership inquiry are title, control, intent, possession and right to use. Court properly found that certificate of deposit in husband’s name was a marital asset despite his testimony that it was really his mother’s.
Articles on issues regarding non-marital remedies.
In light of a party’s right to maintain a tort action against a spouse and the inadequacies of the divorce forum to fully address such a claim, it would be contrary to public policy to require a party to join a tort claim in a divorce action. Public policy mandates that a party be permitted to commence a tort action subsequent to a divorce judgment.