Discovery of financial records after divorce did not entitle husband to relief from judgement as he was not diligent in seeking the documents. In addition, the material was not material as it did not prove that the accounts were gifted to him.
Circuit court properly denied motion to reopen judgement where husband claimed wife failed to turn over certain financial records. Husband exhibited a lack of diligence to find the records before trial and they were not material in any event.
Although circuit court erred in declaring Dusty to be a legal parent by approving agreement under §891.40, motion to hold order void under §806.07(1)(d) was improperly granted. (Not published, but citeable)
Court did not err in denying relief from judgment where it found wife entered in stipulations knowingly and with understanding.
Trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in declining to reopen judgment where after the divorce, the employer (Milwaukee County) modified pension payout terms through a “backdrop” lump sum payment. The judgment was not ambiguous, there was no mutual mistake or fraud. The backdrop was an unanticipated windfall.
Trial court erroneously exercised its discretion in denying motion to reopen judgment where father was served with while incarcerated, was not represented by an attorney, mother committed perjury about parentage and father never had an opportunity for a full and fair determination of paternity.
A circuit court may relieve a party from property division provisions of a divorce judgment under Wis. Stat. §806.07 even though the divorce judgment incorporates a confirmed arbitral award.
Trial court erred in reopening an order revising maintenance without finding that any reason set forth in §806.07 existed.
Trial court did not err in finding motion to reopen paternity case was brought within a reasonable time where initial blood test 12 years before erroneously excluded father.
Trial court erred by reopening judgement under 806.07 to prevent dischargeability of debt .
Motion for reconsideration must be filed within 20 days of judgment.
Discharge of a property settlement in bankruptcy does not warrant relief under §806.07.
No abuse of discretion by trial court In Refusing to reopen judgment where respondent admitted paternity without blood tests and now claims he is not the father.
Trial court’s holding that it was required to reopen the judgment once it found fraud was error. A finding that there are grounds to reopen the judgment does not necessitate reopening it. The court may consider factors that would militate against granting relief.
Husband entitled to blood tests to determine paternity after the divorce where he did not contest paternity at trial, but learned later that he may not be father.
Simple legal error, correctable by appeal, is not an extraordinary circumstance justifying relief from judgment.
Extraordinary circumstances may warrant a reopening of a judgment.
Although property division cannot be modified under §767.32, §806.07 does give the court discretionary authority to grant relief from judgment.
Trial court’s refusal to grant relief from judgment will not be reversed unless the court abused its discretion or no reasonable basis exists for the court’s decision.
A party can reopen property division based on a stipulation of the parties where she never agreed on the record, and the order was unclear.