Wis. Stat. § 767.01
Wis. Stat. § 767.01
Sub. (2) is amended by 2009 Wis. Act 321 effective the date stated in the notice published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register under s. 769.904 to read:
(2) Paternity and child support. In an action to establish paternity or to establish or enforce a child support obligation, in regard to a child who is the subject of the action, a person is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as provided in s. 769.201(1m) or 801.05.
2005 Wis. Act 443 contains explanatory notes.
.The trial court has broad authority to enforce its family court judgments and may employ any remedy customarily available to courts of equity. It was appropriate to direct the defendant to pay the plaintiff's medical expenses when the defendant had not converted an insurance policy as ordered under a divorce decree. Rotter v. Rotter, 80 Wis. 2d 56, 257 N.W.2d 861 (1977). When a husband complied with the original court order to make property division installment payments, the court had no authority to order the husband to pay the wife's income tax on installments. Wright v. Wright, 92 Wis. 2d 246, 284 N.W.2d 894 (1979). When possession of the party's homestead was awarded by the divorce judgment to the wife to be sold upon her death with the proceeds divided between the parties, the family court and probate court had concurrent jurisdiction. Morrissette v. Morrissette, 99 Wis. 2d 467, 299 N.W.2d 590 (Ct. App. 1980). A circuit court does not have subject matter jurisdiction in a divorce action to determine attorney fees between an attorney and client that the attorney continues to represent in the divorce action. Stasey v. Stasey, 168 Wis. 2d 37, 483 N.W.2d 221 (1992). The joinder of divorce and contract actions between spouses is not required. Caulfield v. Caulfield, 183 Wis. 2d 83, 515 N.W.2d 278 (Ct. App. 1994). When one party to a divorce dies during the action, the court loses jurisdiction, including jurisdiction to enforce prior orders. Socha v. Socha, 183 Wis. 2d 390, 515 N.W.2d 337 (Ct. App. 1994). An injunction against a man, whose petition to establish himself as father of two children had been denied, to stay away from the children until they reach age 18 was within the court's power to enforce its judgments and orders. Paternity of C.A.S. & C.D.S., 185 Wis. 2d 468, 518 N.W.2d 285 (Ct. App. 1994). A divorce action terminates on the death of a spouse. After the death, an order prohibiting an act in regard to marital property entered in the divorce may not be enforced under this chapter. As the parties are legally married at the time of death, the sole remedy for resolving disputes over marital property lies under s. 766.70. Socha v. Socha, 204 Wis. 2d 474, 555 N.W.2d 152 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-1641. A family court has jurisdiction to hear equitable claims against third parties that affect the rights of parties to a divorce, such as a claim against a third-party title holder of property claimed to actually be part of the marital estate. Zabel v. Zabel, 210 Wis. 2d 336, 565 N.W.2d 240 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-3092. There is no authority in this chapter to allow a name change for children in a divorce action. Jocius v. Jocius, 218 Wis. 2d 103, 580 N.W.2d 708 (Ct. App. 1998), 96-2746. A cause of action under s. 766.70 requires that the complained of conduct arise as a result of the marital relationship and a breach of the good faith duty between spouses. Once a divorce is commenced, the claim must be resolved in divorce court. A cause of action between spouses arising outside the marital relationship, such as a stockbroker-client relationship, does not fall within s. 766.70 and may be maintained independent of the divorce. Knafelc v. Dain Bosworth, Inc., 224 Wis. 2d 346, 591 N.W.2d 611 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-0067. Chapter 822, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, does not, in and of itself, establish a sufficient statutory basis for personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a paternity proceeding. Paula M.S. v. Neal A.R., 226 Wis. 2d 79, 593 N.W.2d 486 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-1158. A common law action for unjust enrichment cannot be litigated in a divorce action. Dahlke v. Dahlke, 2002 WI App 282, 258 Wis. 2d 764, 654 N.W.2d 73, 02-0194.