Marriage of Wainright v. Wainright
Motion for reconsideration must be filed within 20 days of judgment.
State ex rel. Cynthia M.S. v. Michael F.C.
Trial court did not err in finding motion to reopen paternity case was brought within a reasonable time where initial blood test 12 years before erroneously excluded father.
In Re Marriage of Lyman v. Lyman
Trial court erred by reopening judgement under 806.07 to prevent dischargeability of debt .
In Re Marriage of Mogged v. Mogged
Trial court erred in reopening an order revising maintenance without finding that any reason set forth in §806.07 existed.
In Re Marriage of Franke v. Franke
A circuit court may relieve a party from property division provisions of a divorce judgment under Wis. Stat. §806.07 even though the divorce judgment incorporates a confirmed arbitral award.
In Re Paternity of Demetrius A.Y.: Shanee Y.
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.
In Re Marriage of Winkler v. Winkler
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.
Hottenroth v. Hetsko
Court did not err in denying relief from judgment where it found wife entered in stipulations knowingly and with understanding.
In Re Paternity of Christian R.H.
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)
Marriage of Roghan Wenzel v. Wenzel
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.