Lindahl v. Lindahl
| Decision Date | 30 April 1963 |
| Parties | Ellen Margaret LINDAHL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Axel Victor LINDAHL, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
George W. Peterson, Balsam Lake, E. Nelton, Balsam Lake, of counsel, for appellant.
Louis G. Nagler, Balsam Lake, Doar & Knowles, New Richmond, of counsel, for respondent.
By the trial court's division of property, plaintiff wife was awarded approximately one half of the aggregate property of the parties. This court considered that this was an excessive proportion to award to her in view of the fact that defendant had a substantial estate of his own at the time of the marriage. The division of property was accordingly modified so as to award plaintiff slightly in excess of one third of the aggregate property. Instead of granting this modification on the ground that the trial court's division constituted an abuse of discretion, the opinion stated that the trial court erred in determining the amount of defendant's wealth at the time of the marriage. The error pointed out was the trial court's failure to accept defendant's uncontradicted testimony that the value of a paid-up life insurance policy at time of marriage was $6,000.
Plaintiff has moved for a rehearing on the ground that defendant's testimony was contradicted by his own financial statement, which was admitted into evidence as an exhibit, in which he listed the value of this policy at a considerably lesser amount than $6,000. This fact was not called to our attention by the original briefs. Furthermore, defendant's original brief contained no appendix and plaintiff's supplemental appendix consisted solely of the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Upon further careful consideration, we have concluded that the modified division of property set forth in the original opinion is fair and equitable and should stand regardless of the value that such paid-up life insurance policy had at time of the marriage.
The original opinion set forth the following quotation from Antholt v. Antholt (1959), 6 Wis.2d 586, 588, 95 N.W.2d 224, 225:
'We have held many times that the division of property in divorce actions is a matter peculiarly within the discretion of the trial court and its determination must prevail unless clearly characterized by mistake or error with respect to the facts upon which the court exercised its discretion.'
This above quotation conveys the impression that the only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bussewitz v. Bussewitz
...750, 229 N.W.2d 629; Leeder, supra, 46 Wis.2d 468, 469, 175 N.W.2d 262; Lindahl v. Lindahl, 19 Wis.2d 379, 380, 120 N.W.2d 142, 121 N.W.2d 286 (1963). The defendant here asserts that the property division was excessive in favor of the plaintiff. Because the trial court failed to value the e......
-
Dutcher v. Phoenix Ins. Co.
...126 N.W.2d 503; Reinke v. Woltjen (1966), 32 Wis.2d 653, 659--661, 146 N.W.2d 493.15 (1963), 19 Wis.2d 379, 384, 120 N.W.2d 142, 145, 121 N.W.2d 286.16 (1955), 269 Wis. 113, 118, 68 N.W.2d 804, 807.17 Martinson v. Brooks Equipment Leasing, Inc. (1967), 36 Wis.2d 209, 152 N.W.2d 849; Seifert......
-
Martinson v. Brooks Equipment Leasing, Inc.
...questions involved. * * *' (Emphasis supplied.) This court stated in Lindahl v. Lindahl (1963), 19 Wis.2d 379, 384, 120 N.W.2d 142, 145, 121 N.W.2d 286, '* * * The purpose of this rule is to enable us in the limited time available to give due consideration to all the cases presented to us. ......
-
Kronforst v. Kronforst
...subject to review by this court on the ground that it is excessive. Lindahl v. Lindahl (1963), 19 Wis.2d 379, 389b, 120 N.W.2d 142, 121 N.W.2d 286. See also Bruhn v. Bruhn (1928), 197 Wis. 358, 361, 222 N.W. 242. If this court determines that the division of estate is excessive under all th......