Hunter v. Hunter, 103
| Decision Date | 25 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 103,103 |
| Parties | Ellen HUNTER, Respondent, v. Donald HUNTER, Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
In this divorce action, a judgment of divorce was granted to the plaintiff-wife on April 20, 1967, and was entered on November 8, 1967. The defendant husband is an attorney, licensed to practice in this state. One child was born of the marriage.
On April 18, 1968, the plaintiff-wife (respondent here) filed and served a notice of appeal to the supreme court on her husband's attorney. The appeal was from the entire judgment except that part which granted an absolute divorce. This appeal was subsequently dismissed on December 10, 1968.
On May 28, 1968, the wife filed an affidavit with the trial court alleging, in part, that defendant (appellant here) was in arrears in his alimony and support payments and that he had remarried in California on or about April 20, 1968, without permission from any court. The respondent-wife asked that the court direct to the appellant an order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt.
On May 29, 1968, Judge Traeger ordered the appellant to show cause why he should not be held and adjudged in contempt
'* * * for his contumacious disregard of the Orders of the Court and the Judgment of Divorce in regard to harassing and molesting the plaintiff and minor child, why said alimony and support arrearage should not be liquidated forthwith in its entirety and why the attorney fees long past due should not be paid in full * * *.'
A hearing was held on June 20, 1968, on the order to show cause after which Judge Traeger made the following finding:
Thereafter, appellant purged himself of the contempt finding regarding support and attorney fees and now appeals from that part of Judge Traeger's determination by which he was sentenced to three days for failing to obtain court permission to remarry.
Kersten & McKinnon, Milwaukee, for appellant.
Jacobson & Jacobson, Donald C. Jacobson, Milwaukee, for respondent.
The first issue raised by appellant in his attack on the trial court's three-day contempt order is as follows: Did the circuit court for Milwaukee county have jurisdiction to hold appellant in contempt for failing to obtain permission to remarry, when at the time of such contempt proceedings an appeal from the judgment of divorce was pending before this court?
Put another way, the issue is whether the lower court had jurisdiction to find appellant in contempt when an appeal from the entire original judgment of divorce, except that part which granted an absolute divorce, was pending before this court.
In order to ensure the orderly administration of justice and to prevent the trial court from doing anything...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Krause v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co.
... ... Duwe (1950), 256 Wis. 378, 41 N.W.2d 277; Makowski v. Ehlenbach (1960), 11 Wis.2d 38, 103 N.W.2d 907; Wiggins Construction Co. v. Joint School Dist. (1967), 35 Wis.2d 632, 151 N.W.2d 642 ... ...
-
Tollefsrud's Estate, Matter of
...347 N.E.2d 552, 554; Southland Corporation v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 130 Ill.App.2d 311, 264 N.E.2d 451, 454-455; Hunter v. Hunter, 44 Wis.2d 618, 172 N.W.2d 167, 169; Osborn v. Riley, 331 So.2d 268, 271 (Ala.); Blackmon v. Blackmon, 525 S.W.2d 711, 713 (Texas Civ.App.); Strauser v. St......
-
Trust Estate of Schaefer, Matter of
...concerned with the appeal but related to the case are still properly within the trial court's jurisdiction. See Hunter v. Hunter, 44 Wis.2d 618, 621, 172 N.W.2d 167, 169 (1969). If Mrs. Schaefer succeeds in her suit for accounting, any additional funds due the trust could be transferred to ......
-
Weber v. Israel
...of jurisdiction and could not entertain Weber's motion for post-conviction relief in the first instance. See Hunter v. Hunter, 44 Wis.2d 618, 621, 172 N.W.2d 167, 169 (1969). Thus, the appeal record considered by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals and the Wisconsin Supreme Court contained no ev......