Seyfert v. Seyfert
| Decision Date | 02 February 1932 |
| Citation | 240 N.W. 150,206 Wis. 503 |
| Parties | SEYFERT v. SEYFERT. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Ozaukee County; Byron B. Park, Circuit Judge.
Action for divorce by Paul Seyfert against Annette Seyfert. From so much of the judgment as awarded the defendant attorneys' fees, disbursements, alimony, and final division of estate between parties, plaintiff appeals.--[By Editorial Staff.]
That part of judgment appealed from reversed and remanded, with directions.
Action begun March 16, 1928; Judgment entered July 8, 1931. Division of estate. The plaintiff appeals from so much of the judgment as awards the defendant the following sums:
+----------------------------------------------------------+
¦For attorneys' fees ¦$ 600.00 ¦
+------------------------------------------------+---------¦
¦For disbursements as taxed ¦144.79 ¦
+------------------------------------------------+---------¦
¦For arrearage of alimony ¦325.00 ¦
+------------------------------------------------+---------¦
¦For final division of estate between the parties¦5,000.00 ¦
+------------------------------------------------+---------¦
¦Total ¦$6,069.79¦
+----------------------------------------------------------+
H. O. Wolfe, of Milwaukee (Lyman G. Wheeler, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for appellant.
Schanen & Huiras, of Port Washington, and Corrigan & Backus, of Milwaukee, for respondent.
This case has once before been here, and is reported in 201 Wis. 223, 229 N. W. 636. Upon the remission of the record, the case was tried upon the merits, and resulted in a judgment of divorce from the bonds of matrimony in favor of the plaintiff husband against the defendant wife on the ground that she was guilty of cruel and inhuman treatment practiced by means of lewd and lascivious conduct with other men and as a frequenter of a disorderly house.
A brief résumé of the principal facts is necessary to an understanding of the question raised on the appeal. The parties were married in October, 1909. At the time of the trial plaintiff was forty-eight years of age and the defendant thirty-seven years of age. They have two daughters, one nineteen and one twelve years of age. In 1911 they went to Florida, where they remained until 1915, when they returned to Mequon. Upon their return from Florida they purchased the store property in Mequon. Subsequently a drug department was added to the general store. The building was remodeled in 1923 at a cost of approximately $12,000, and at that time the plaintiff deeded a one-half interest in the store property to the defendant. Plaintiff has also acquired a dwelling house, where his mother and father lived. At the time of the marriage, the plaintiff had about $1,000.
The court found that from 1909 to 1925 both parties were frugal, very industrious, hard-working people, and the property which they now possess is for all practical purposes the result of their joint skill and labor, and this whether the original acquisition of the store property was by gift or purchase.
Inasmuch as there is no appeal from that part of the judgment which awards the divorce, it is not necessary for us to recite the facts which relate to the defendant's misconduct.
With reference to the value of the property, the court said:
“As to the property, from the evidence aided by my personal inspection of the premises with the Attorney for the respective parties, I find as follows:
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦The store property, land, building and fixtures ¦$22,000.00¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------+----------¦
¦The dwelling house ¦6,000.00 ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------+----------¦
¦The stock in the store ¦5,000.00 ¦
+--------------------------------------------------------------+----------¦
¦Total ¦$33,000.00¦...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Esselstyn v. Casteel
...to the plaintiff payable in installments, does not affect this conclusion. Putnam v. Putnam, 104 Kan. 47, 177 P. 838; Seyfert v. Seyfert, 206 Wis. 503, 240 N.W. 150; Madden v. Madden, 5 Ohio N.P.,N.S., 593, 604, reversed on other grounds 11 Ohio Cir.Ct.R.,N.S., 238. In Prime v. Prime, 172 O......
-
Strandberg v. Strandberg
...N.W. 242; Heffernan v. Heffernan (1965), 27 Wis.2d 307, 134 N.W.2d 439; re contribution of each party to the estate: Seyfert v. Seyfert (1932), 206 Wis. 503, 240 N.W. 150; Ausman v. Ausman (1966), 31 Wis.2d 79, 141 N.W.2d 869.2 See Fricke v. Fricke (1950), 257 Wis. 124, 42 N.W.2d 500; Caldw......