Rust v. Rust
Wisconsin Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHeffernan, J.
The defendant-wife asserts that her motion for a money judgment for the arrearage in alimony should have been granted.
The Wisconsin law, however, is clear that one to whom alimony is due and owing is not thereby entitled to a money judgment. Sec. 247.32, Stats., 1 provides that the court has continuing jurisdiction to revise its judgments.
In a case in which a wife sought to collect an alimony arrearage by a garnishment, this court in Courtney v. Courtney (1947), 251 Wis. 443, 446, 29 N. W. 2d 759, stated:
“It is to be remembered that it is an alimony judgment which is sought to be enforced…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Miner v. MinerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960
- Lacey v. LaceyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
- Kriesel v. KrieselWisconsin Supreme Court · 1967
- Courtney v. CourtneyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1947
- Braun v. BrownWisconsin Supreme Court · 1957
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- In RE MARRIAGE OF SCHULZ v. YstadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1990
- Vander Perren v. Vander PerrenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1982
- Ennis v. EnnisCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1979
- Matson v. MatsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1981
- Monson v. MonsonCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1978
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.