You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Merten v. National Manufacturers Bank of Neenah

Citations: 26 Wis. 2d 181; 131 N.W.2d 868; 1965 Wisc. LEXIS 970

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court; January 5, 1965; Wisconsin; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this case before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, the court addressed the reviewability of a divorce judgment post the death of one party. The respondent contended that Section 247.37(2) of the Wisconsin Statutes restricted the court from setting aside a divorce judgment under such circumstances. However, the court, referencing the precedent set in Hirchert v. Hirchert, clarified that an appeal could still proceed even if one party had died, emphasizing the injustice of binding a party to an invalid judgment due to the other's death. The court acknowledged the legitimacy of the appeal but found no basis to reverse the trial court's decision, as the evidence of cruel and inhuman treatment was minimal yet corroborated sufficiently under Section 247.07(4). The family court commissioner's recommendation lacked statutory compliance, rendering it insufficient. Additionally, the division of property was deemed fair and lawful, with the wife's right to payment vesting immediately. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that no further provisions for the wife were permissible post-property division, and denied a motion for rehearing. The appellate court upheld the trial court's findings, emphasizing the trial judge's superior position in evaluating evidence and party actions.

Legal Issues Addressed

Application of Section 247.37(2) Stats.

Application: The respondent argued that this statute restricts the ability to set aside a divorce when one party is deceased, but the court found that it does not prevent an appeal if one party has died.

Reasoning: The respondent argued that sec. 247.37 (2) Stats. restricts the court's ability to set aside a divorce when one party is deceased.

Grounds for Divorce Based on Cruel and Inhuman Treatment

Application: The trial court's findings of cruelty were upheld despite minimal evidence, as the appellate court defers to the trial judge's assessment.

Reasoning: The statute sec. 247.07 (4) allows for divorce based on cruel and inhuman treatment, but the evidence presented was minimal.

Property Settlement in Lieu of Alimony

Application: The property division was deemed lawful and binding, with the wife's right to payment vesting immediately, and no further provisions were allowed after the division.

Reasoning: The division of property was deemed fair and lawful, having been agreed upon by the parties with legal counsel.

Reviewability of Divorce Judgment Post-Death

Application: The court determined that a divorce judgment can be reviewed even if one party has died, as it would be unjust to bind a party to an invalid judgment due to the other party's death.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court of Wisconsin determined that a judgment of divorce is reviewable even if one party has died.

Role of Family Court Commissioner's Recommendations

Application: The recommendation for divorce was insufficient without compliance with statutory requirements to present evidence on the merits.

Reasoning: The family court commissioner's recommendation for granting a divorce was deemed insufficient as it lacked compliance with statutory requirements to present evidence on the merits.