Kusick v. Kusick

Decision Date18 May 1943
Citation243 Wis. 135,9 N.W.2d 607
PartiesKUSICK v. KUSICK.
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from an amended judgment and supplemental appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Dane County; August C. Hoppmann, Judge.

Reversed.

FRITZ, J., dissenting.

On April 23, 1942, Mary L. Kusick applied to the circuit court for Dane county, Wisconsin, to amend a judgment of absolute divorce entered in said court on August 9, 1940, by increasing the allowance for the support of the three minor children. Appellant John Kusick appeals from the amended judgment entered September 16, 1942, increasing the allowance for support of the minor children and the allowance of attorneys' fees to respondent in the proceeding. There is also a separate appeal from an order dated November 9, 1942, allowing attorneys' fees and disbursements to attorneys for respondent on the original appeal to this court.

Judgment of absolute divorce was granted to Mary L. Kusick in the circuit court for Dane county, Wisconsin, on the 9th day of August, 1940, granting custody of the three minor children to her and ordering the husband, John Kusick, to pay $25 per month as support money for the children, which has been paid by him at all times since the first action was commenced. At the time of granting the divorce, the parties entered into a stipulation as to the division of property and the payment of the above support money, and providing also that the plaintiff was to assume and pay her own attorneys' fees, which stipulation was approved by the court and the provisions included in the judgment.

In 1936 respondent commenced an action for divorce against appellant in the circuit court for Marquette county, Wisconsin, which was tried before the court, and judgment was entered dismissing the action on the merits. In the same judgment, the court granted the custody of the children to this respondent and required this appellant to pay $25 per month for the care and support of these minor children. This judgment was entered under date of August 11, 1936.

A second action for divorce was brought by this respondent in the superior court for Dane county, and by stipulation the place of trial was changed to the circuit court for Columbia county, Wisconsin, which action was dismissed upon the merits by stipulation on the 5th day of May, 1939.

The court amended the judgment entered in the circuit court for Dane county, Wisconsin, by ordering defendant to pay $50 per month in place of $25 per month for the support of the minor children, and allowed attorneys' fees of $100 plus $5.20 disbursements, and impressed the real estate of the defendant with a lien to secure payment of the support money. An appeal was taken to this court and respondent then made application for additional attorneys' fees and disbursements on the appeal. By order, the court allowed $150 attorneys' fees and $50 for disbursements, any unexpended disbursements to be refunded. A supplemental appeal was taken from this order.

Daniel H. Grady, of Portage, for appellant.

Hall, Baker & Hall and Paul Griffith, all of Madison, for respondent.

BARLOW, Justice.

The appeals in this case are confined to the amendment of the judgment in the circuit court for Dane county, Wisconsin, affecting the care and support of the minor children, and the allowance of attorneys' fees in this proceeding. These are the only questions before the court for consideration on this appeal. Moerchen v. Stoll, Adm'r., 48 Wis. 307, 4 N.W. 352;Ledvina v. Ebert, 237 Wis. 358, 296 N.W. 110.

It was stipulated in open court in the instant proceeding that the judgment in the prior action for divorce in Marquette county awarded the custody of the minor...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Sommer v. Borovic, 48589
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • October 5, 1977
    ...for an order awarding custody of a child is, by its nature, an interlocutory order and not a final one. Kusick v. Kusick (1943), 243 Wis. 135, 9 N.W.2d 607, illustrates the general rule. There a wife brought a divorce proceeding in Marquette County. The court dismissed the divorce action bu......
  • Teague v. Bad River Band of Chippewa Indians
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • July 6, 2000
    ...Syver, 6 Wis. 2d at 154; State ex rel. White v. District Court, 262 Wis. 139, 143, 54 N.W.2d 189 (1952); Kusick v. Kusick, 243 Wis. 135, 138, 9 N.W.2d 607 (1943). ¶ 30. Teague contends that this "prior action pending" rule should apply to the tribal court in this case because the tribal cou......
  • Teague v. BAD RIVER CHIPPEWA INDIANS, 01-1256.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • July 17, 2003
    ...Syver, 6 Wis. 2d at 154.; State ex rel. White v. District Court, 262 Wis. 139, 143, 54 N.W.2d 189 (1952); Kusick v. Kusick, 243 Wis. 135, 138, 9 N.W.2d 607 (1943). Teague contends that this "prior action pending" rule should apply to the tribal court in this case because the tribal court is......
  • Gaebler's Estate, In re
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 15, 1952
    ...Schaefer v. Milner, 156 Kan. 768, 137 P.2d 156; Gay, Hardie & Co. v. Brierfield Coal & Iron Co., 94 Ala. 303, 11 So. 353; Kusick v. Kusick, 243 Wis. 135, 9 N.W.2d 607; Ex parte Burch, 236 Ala. 662, 184 So. 694; Morris v. McElroy, 23 Ala.App. 96, 122 So. 606; State ex rel. Cook v. Madison Ci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT