Stickles v. Reichardt
| Decision Date | 10 February 1931 |
| Citation | 234 N.W. 728,203 Wis. 579 |
| Parties | STICKLES v. REICHARDT ET UX. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Milwaukee County; Walter Schinz, Circuit Judge.
Action by Paul S. Stickles against Albert E. Reichardt and wife. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals.--[By Editorial Staff.]
Affirmed.
Action begun March 21, 1930; order entered July 9, 1930. Specific performance. Demurrer. The action is one to compel specific performance of a contract made at the time of the adoption of a three year old child between the natural father of the child and the adoptive parents, whereby the latter agreed, in consideration of the father's consent to the adoption, that he might continue thereafter periodically to see and visit the child.
The material facts alleged in the complaint are as follows: The child in question was born January 9, 1926, the lawful issue of Paul Stickles and his wife, Mathilda. The latter having died when the boy was eight months old, the sole care and responsibility for the child devolved upon the father, and thenceforth for approximately three years the plaintiff supported and cared for his son in the home of relatives, and throughout that period he kept up a close paternal relationship with the boy by visiting him frequently and taking exclusive charge of him for the entire day on Sunday of each week.
In July, 1929, the defendant Albert Reichardt first proposed that Stickles allow Reichardt and his wife to adopt the child. At that time Stickles and Reichardt were associated in business, in that Stickles was employed as a salesman for a company of which Reichardt was president and manager, and in that capacity had direct charge and supervision over Stickles. These two men have been acquainted for more than twenty-five years. Reichardt argued that the adoption would promote the material interests of the child because he and his wife were in a position to give the boy comforts, advantages, and an education beyond the scale which Paul Stickles could afford, and both of the defendants promised that, if the plaintiff would consent to the adoption, they would respect his natural ties to his offspring and would permit him to continue his association and periodical visits with the child. Relying upon such express assurances, Stickles gave his consent to the adoption, and on August 7, 1929, an order of adoption in the usual form was made by the county court of Milwaukee county, whereby Paul Stickles, Jr., became the adopted son of the defendants. Following the adoption, the Reichardts observed for a few months their agreement to allow Stickles to visit the child in their home where the child has resided since the adoption, but their attitude then changed, and they notified him that he must stay away from their house, and ever since December 12, 1929, they have repudiated their obligations under the agreement above referred to, and have completely prevented Stickles from seeing or visiting the child.
From the order sustaining the demurrer to the plaintiff's complaint, plaintiff appeals.Fawsett & Shea, of Milwaukee, for appellant.
August C. Moeller and Emmet Horan, Jr., both of Milwaukee, for respondents.
On behalf of the plaintiff it is contended:
“I. The defendants' promise to allow the plaintiff to see and visit the child was supported by valid consideration.
II. Equity should compel specific performance of the defendants' promise because the legal remedy of damages would be an inappropriate and inadequate remedy for the breach.
III. The order of adoption did not release the defendants' promise regarding visitation of the child.
IV. The defendants' promise is sufficiently certain to support a decree of specific performance.
V. The amount of judicial supervision required for enforcement of a decree of specific performance in this case would not be enough to justify a denial of relief on that ground.”
On behalf of the defendants it is contended:
“(1) The order of adoption by terminating the legal status between the plaintiff and his son necessarily released the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Interest of Z.J.H., In re
...best interest to live in his legal parent's home. See LaChapell, 66 Wis.2d at 683, 225 N.W.2d 501. We stated, in Stickles v. Reichardt, 203 Wis. 579, 582, 234 N.W. 728 (1931), "in the absence of a statute, contracts of a parent by which a parent attempts to transfer permanently the custody ......
-
Custody of H.S.H.-K., In re
...responsibilities with another adult. Section 767.245(1), Stats. 1991-92. Furthermore, the Z.J.H. court relied on Stickles v. Reichardt, 203 Wis. 579, 582, 234 N.W. 728 (1931), for the rule that "in the absence of a statute, contracts of a parent by which a parent attempts to transfer perman......
-
Angel Lace M., In Interest of
...inheritance rights of adopted persons. 9 These cases do not provide guidance on the issue before us today. In Stickles v. Reichardt, 203 Wis. 579, 234 N.W. 728 (1931), this court concluded that sec. 322.07 prohibited enforcement of a contract between a birth father and adoptive parents that......
-
Adoption of a Minor, In re
...with the adoption, against public policy, and unenforceable. Whetmore v. Fratello, 197 Or. 396, 252 P.2d 1083. Stickles v. Reichardt, 203 Wis. 579, 234 N.W. 728. Our cases indicate the contrary. 'Contracts of that nature are not uncommon. They are recognized as having incidents which, when ......