Vishnevsky v. Vishnevsky

Citations: 11 Wis. 2d 259; 11 Wis. 259; 105 N.W.2d 314; 1960 Wisc. LEXIS 449

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court; October 4, 1960; Wisconsin; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case Vishnevsky v. Vishnevsky, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin addressed a divorce action initiated by the plaintiff, Veronica Vishnevsky, in January 1958 after a period of separation. The couple, married in 1949, had two children and had initially built their careers together, with the plaintiff obtaining a real estate broker's license while the defendant became a carpenter and builder. The action was dismissed for lack of prosecution after both parties failed to appear for trial, despite the plaintiff claiming that the dismissal was based on a stipulation that was not documented in the record. Shortly after dismissal, the defendant sought reinstatement of the case, which was granted by the court without notice to the plaintiff, leading her to challenge the court's jurisdiction. The court ruled that it could reinstate the action under sec. 269.28, Stats., and noted that the plaintiff had waived her objection to jurisdiction by appearing generally at the rescheduled trial. 

The plaintiff further contended that she did not receive a fair trial, citing insufficient funds to prepare her case. However, the court found that it had provided adequate financial support for her attorney's fees and related costs. The trial lasted eight days and included over 1,300 pages of testimony, contradicting her claim of not having her day in court. The court's decision emphasized that jurisdictional objections must be addressed before the merits of the case and that any challenges to the court's jurisdiction were effectively waived by the plaintiff's participation in the trial.

Plaintiff's attorney noted that the defendant paid $50 in court to subpoena witnesses, while also observing that two psychiatrists were present, potentially to testify regarding the plaintiff's mental condition. The plaintiff’s attorney requested court funding to engage two psychiatrists for her defense, but the court deemed this request untimely. Despite the presence of the psychiatrists, the plaintiff's attorney did not formally state an intention to call them as witnesses and indicated that he would take responsibility for securing psychiatrists for trial. The court clarified that any expenses incurred would be assessed for reasonableness later. The transcript does not confirm whether the plaintiff hired psychiatrists or if any testimony was provided on her behalf. Assertions made by the plaintiff, including claims of insufficient funds to present her case, misuse of evidence, inadequate questioning of witnesses, and improper trial motions, were found to be unsupported. The trial judge was deemed competent and allowed significant latitude to the plaintiff, who had ample opportunity to present her case over eight days of trial. Allegations against the defendant included excessive alcohol use, emotional and physical abuse, selfish behavior, ridicule, and threats, along with claims that he was unfit to care for their children.

Defendant's counterclaim alleges cruel and inhuman treatment by plaintiff, including nagging, belittling, refusal to participate in social life, lack of domestic duties, denial of sexual relations, and preventing family visits. Defendant claims plaintiff made defamatory statements about his sexuality and asserted her role in his business success, and she sought public acknowledgment of his alleged homosexuality. Plaintiff denies most allegations but admits to making statements about defendant’s sexuality, which she claims are true. The trial court found insufficient credible evidence to support plaintiff's complaint for divorce but upheld defendant's claims of cruel and inhuman treatment. Plaintiff’s accusations of excessive drinking, physical violence, and perversion were uncorroborated, and the court discounted her testimony. Letters from defendant indicated a desire for reconciliation despite acknowledging personal shortcomings. Psychiatric evaluations supported defendant’s normalcy and denied any homosexual tendencies. The court characterized plaintiff's testimony as largely untrue or exaggerated, attributing this to her emotional instability, as noted by psychiatrists.

Mrs. Vishnevsky perceives herself as flawless, attributing difficulties to her husband and his associates rather than acknowledging any personal issues. The allegation of homosexuality made against the husband lacks substantiation, and Mrs. Vishnevsky's emotional disorganization is noted as severe. Dr. Kasak testified that her emotional state negatively impacts their children, causing potential difficulties in their schooling and social interactions. He described the husband as an average, normal man. Dr. Hurley characterized Mrs. Vishnevsky as a seriously disturbed individual with aggressive and evasive tendencies, suggesting she harbors unrecognized hostility that she directs towards her family. He expressed concerns that her personality issues would harm the welfare and development of their young sons, potentially distorting their understanding of sex and relationships. Dr. Hurley also indicated that Mrs. Vishnevsky exhibits paranoid tendencies and a need for control. In contrast, he found no evidence of homosexual behavior in the husband, supported by reliable psychological testing. The trial court determined that Mrs. Vishnevsky is unfit for custody, while the husband is deemed suitable, with her claims unsupported by evidence. The court noted that she could have called her own psychiatric witnesses but failed to do so. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment, denying the appellant's motions as meritless, with a rehearing motion also denied without costs.