Skowron v. Skowron
| Decision Date | 03 April 1951 |
| Parties | SKOWRON, v. SKOWRON. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
The action is one for declaratory judgment and was begun May 13, 1950. Defendant demurred to the complaint and the demurrer was overruled by order entered October 27, 1950.
The complaint alleges that in 1937, six weeks before they were married, the parties executed a contract which stated that Mr. Skowron would provide a home for his wife during the marriage and which settled the amount she would receive at Mr. Skowron's death if she survived him and also what she would receive if they were divorced. It then alleges that by reason of the agreement Mr. Skowron has excluded her from his financial affairs and he retains title to all his property, including the homestead, and that his conduct resulted in excluding her from the home on November 8, 1943. Thereupon, she alleges, legal counsel advised her that the contract was void and on December 18, 1943 she started an action to have it declared so, and on January 26, 1944 commenced another action for separate maintenance. While these actions were pending, the complaint continues, Mrs. Skowron was advised that the agreement was valid, after all, which induced her to compromise her suit by joining in an amendment to the contract increasing her benefits thereunder, after which she returned to the home and resumed her marital relations. Even so, Mr. Skowron's attitude was unchanged and he frequently told his wife that nothing belonged to her, he could do as he liked with his property and she would have to wait until he died before she would get any of his money. Mrs. Skowron complains that the original and the amended contract thus aggrieve and irreparably damage her and she prays judgment declaring them void.
Gold & McCann, Arthur Magidson, all of Milwaukee, for appellant.
Harry S. Sicula, Milwaukee, for respondent.
Defendant demurred because (1) the court has no jurisdiction over the subject of the action, and (2) the complaint does not state a cause of action. We consider that the demurrer should have been sustained on the latter ground.
Jurisdiction to enter declaratory judgments is given the court by sec. 269.56, Stats. Read literally, the subsections (2) and (3) thereof seem to require courts to give advisory opinions in any question concerning a contract, but before the law was enacted in Wisconsin other states had enacted and construed it, as the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, which constructions come with it into our own jurisprudence. Since its enactment in this state in 1927, this court also has often construed it and it is well settled that the Act does not compel or permit the courts to give advisory opinions and they properly refuse judgments unless the pleadings present a justiciable controversy ripe for judicial determination. The statute deals with present rights only. Courts will not declare rights until they have become fixed under an existing state of facts nor will they determine future rights in anticipation of an event that may never happen. Heller v. Shapiro, 1932, 208 Wis. 310, 242 N.W. 174, 87 A.L.R. 1201; Village of Sun Prairie v. Wisconsin Power & Light Co., 1933, 213 Wis. 277, 251 N.W. 605.
In the instant case the only allegation of present facts affected by the contract concerns the agreement that Mr. Skowron shall provide a home for his wife. That matter is not in issue for she does not charge that he does not provide it or threatens not to in reliance on the contract. In all other respects the contract is concerned with rights which are future and contingent,--Mrs. Skowron's rights if she survives her husband or if they are divorced. The court should not anticipate that either situation will occur but should wait until the event giving rise to rights has happened. State ex rel. La Follette v. Dammann, 1936, 220 Wis. 17, 264 N.W. 627, 103 A.L.R. 1089.
Neither could a present judgment in accord with the demand of the complaint terminate the controversy, and sec. 269.56(6), Stats. gives the court discretion to refuse to render judgment in such event. Mr. Skowron's refusal to share his title to property or his control of his financial interests and affairs with his wife does not depend upon the validity or invalidity of the contract. He may be disagreeable in asserting his right to retain ownership and control but the right is his nevertheless and no judgment concerning the antenuptial agreement could alter it. Whether, if we told him the agreement was void, he would mend his manners is uncertain but it is certain that courts should not enter judgments for such reasons when the legal rights or conduct of the parties could not be affected thereby.
Mrs. Skowron refers us to our own decisions in which she submits the existence of a justiciable controversy was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Rollins
... ... See Skowron v. Skowron, ... 259 Wis. 17, 47 N.W.2d 326 (1951). Therefore, an action for a declaratory judgment cannot be used to decide the legal effect of a ... ...
-
Tooley v. O'Connell
...to determine hypothetical or future rights. Pension Management, Inc., supra, 58 Wis.2d 128, 205 N.W.2d 553; Skowron v. Skowron, 259 Wis. 17, 19, 47 N.W.2d 326 (1951); Heller v. Shapiro, 208 Wis. 310, 313, 314, 242 N.W. 174 There can be no question that a controversy exists. The plaintiffs c......
-
State ex rel. Deisinger v. Treffert
...the proper case present a justiciable controversy. Tooley v. O'Connell, 77 Wis.2d 422, 434, 253 N.W.2d 335 (1977); Skowron v. Skowron, 259 Wis. 17, 19, 47 N.W.2d 326 (1951); State ex rel. La Follette v. Dammann, 220 Wis. 17, 22, 264 N.W. 627 (1936); Heller v. Shapiro, 208 Wis. 310, 313, 314......
-
Trossman v. Trossman
...occasioned by new events may constitute the operative facts entitling a party to declaratory relief.' The defendant cites Skowron v. Skowron, 259 Wis. 17, 47 N.W.2d 326, where the court, in passing on an antenuptial agreement, held that the case did not present a justiciable controversy rip......