Newman v. Newman

• Decision Date: 30 June 1950
• Citation: Newman v. Newman, 257 Wis. 385, 43 N.W.2d 453 (Wis. 1950)
• Parties: NEWMAN, v. NEWMAN.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Page 453

43 N.W.2d 453

257 Wis. 385

NEWMAN, v. NEWMAN.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 30, 1950.

John Morrissy, Lake Geneva, for appellant.

Trinke & Raup, Lake Geneva (Kenney, Korf & Pfeil, Elkhorn, of counsel), for respondent.

FRITZ, Chief Justice.

The divorce was granted on proof of facts alleged in plaintiff's complaint that defendant had delusions that she had been unfaithful to him and that it was no longer safe for her to live with him. The only contested issue for the court to decide was the division of their property between the parties. After the commencement of the trial in open court, the attorneys for the parties drew up in the judge's chambers and in his presence a written list of defendant's assets, and after the discussion thereof by the attorneys they placed, as to each asset, the value thereof as agreed upon between them. Then the agreement, marked Exhibit No. 1, was put into the record of the trial by the following court procedure. The wife's attorney said, 'What about stipulating as to these assets', and the defendant's attorney replied, 'I am willing to stipulate that Exhibit No. 1 is a true and correct statement of the assets of the parties to the best of my knowledge. I move the stipulation be received.' Pursuant thereto Exhibit No. 1 was received in evidence. Thereupon the court stated in an oral decision that the assets listed in Exhibit No. 1 should be divided on a 'fifty-fifty' basis, after some minor items were paid. Accordingly the court, in its written findings and conclusions of law stated: 'That by agreement with defendant's attorney, the defendant's assets were listed as follows:'. Then after stating in the court's written findings the items listed and the monetary amount as to each item listed in Exhibit No. 1, the court stated in its conclusions of law, 'That the allegations in the complaint are true; that the division of the estate as listed above shall be embodied in the terms of the judgment.' The judgment of divorce was entered accordingly.

Defendant contends on his motion to reopen the case that although the above stated court procedure was duly noted in the record of the trial, he is not bound thereby because (1) the stipulated list was not entered in the minutes other than by reference; (2) it was not signed; and (3) the defendant did not know its contents. In addition to the matters stated above, there was submitted on the hearing of defendant's motion the uncontroverted statement in an affidavit by p...