01-3061 Hutjens v. Hutjens

Listen to this article

“In contrast to Washington [v. Washington, 2000 WI 47], the amended judgment here reveals just one interpretation, that payment was to be $250 per month with no interest provided. A divorce judgment ‘that is clear on its face is not open to construction.’ Unless we find that ‘the language of the written instrument is subject to two or more meanings, either on its face or as applied to the extrinsic facts to which it refers’ the document is unambiguous. Because the amended judgment fails to disclose more than one reasonable interpretation, it is not open to construction.”

Finally, where the wife did not seek to reopen the amended judgment until more than 16 years after it had been entered, we agree with the trial court that the interest of finality of judgments outweighs the interest of reopening the amended judgment to have a trial on the merits.

Order affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist III, Brown County, Warpinski, J., Cane, C.J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: James C. Reiher, Milwaukee; Linda S. Isnard, Milwaukee

For Respondent: Thomas J. Walsh, De Pere