O'Neill v. O'Neill
Decision Date | 02 October 1962 |
Parties | Raymond J. O'NEILL, Appellant, v. Mildred Mary O'NEILL, Respondent. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Rummel & Connolly, Milwaukee, L. William Connolly, Milwaukee, of counsel, for appellant.
Eisenberg & Kletzke, Milwaukee, Edwin A. Star, Milwaukee, of counsel, for respondent.
Divorce is a statutory proceeding. 1 The statutes affecting divorce in this state provide for the support of minor children of the parties. 2 No jurisdiction or authority is conferred by the divorce statutes on the court to provide in a divorce judgment, or any proceeding in a divorce action for the support of adult children of the parties. The statutory provisions are plain and concise limiting the support, maintenance and education of the children to the period of their minority. Hence, any order awarding support money for an adult child in a divorce action would necessarily be extrajudicial, a nullity. Boehler v. Boehler (1905), 125 Wis. 627, 104 N.W. 840 and Halmu v. Halmu (1945), 247 Wis. 124, 19 N.W.2d 317.
It therefore necessarily follows that that part of the order of the trial court which revises the judgment by awarding support money for the adult child be vacated.
The order of the trial court awarding support money for the adult child to the defendant is reversed, and cause remanded with directions to enter an order crediting the payment made under the void order, so as to satisfy the requirement in the judgment for the payment of alimony, to the defendant and support money for the minor children of the parties.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Paternity of Roberta Jo W., In re, 96-2753
...The divorce statutes do not confer any authority on the circuit courts to order support of adult children. 3 See O'Neill v. O'Neill, 17 Wis.2d 406, 408, 117 N.W.2d 267 (1962). "The statutory provisions are plain and concise limiting the support, maintenance, and education of the children to......
-
Anderson v. Anderson
...v. Bliwas (1970), 47 Wis.2d 635, 640, 641, 178 N.W.2d 35; Schmitz v. Schmitz (1975), 70 Wis.2d 882, 236 N.W.2d 657; O'Neill v. O'Neill (1962), 17 Wis.2d 406, 117 N.W.2d 267.9 See: Ausman v. Ausman (1966), 31 Wis.2d 79, 141 N.W.2d 869.10 See: Tesch v. Tesch (1974), 63 Wis.2d 320, 217 N.W.2d ......
-
Miller v. Miller
...affirmed. No appeal costs to be taxed. 1 Beberfall v. Beberfall (1969), 44 Wis.2d 540, 543, 171 N.W.2d 390; O'Neill v. O'Neill (1962), 17 Wis.2d 406, 408, 117 N.W.2d 267; Halmu v. Halmu (1945), 247 Wis. 124, 131, 19 N.W.2d 317; Boehler v. Boehler (1905), 125 Wis. 627, 630, 104 N.W. 840.2 Se......
-
Baril v. Baril
...1972, 16 Ariz.App. 565, 494 P.2d 765; Genda v. Superior Court, County of Pima, 1968, 103 Ariz. 240, 439 P.2d 811; O'Neill v. O'Neill, 1962, 17 Wis.2d 406, 117 N.W.2d 267; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 1961, 274 Ala. 477, 149 So.2d 770; Borchert v. Borchert, 1946, 185 Md. 586, 45 A.2d 463, 162 A.L.R......