Case Name: Steven H. Hoyme, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Janice S. Brakken, Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 2004-03-25
Citations: 270 Wis. 2d 55
Docket Number: No. 02-1790
Parties: Steven H. Hoyme, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Janice S. Brakken, Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner.
Judges: Justice JON E WILCOX, Justice N. PATRICK CROOKS, and Justice DAVID T. PROSSER would affirm; Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAM-SON, Justice ANN WALSH BRADLEY, and Justice PATIENCE D. ROGGENSACK would reverse. Justice DIANE S. SYKES did not participate.
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports Second
Volume: 270
Pages: 55–56

Head Matter:
Steven H. Hoyme, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Janice S. Brakken, Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner.
Supreme Court
No. 02-1790.
Oral argument March 10, 2004.
Decided March 25, 2004.
2004 WI 26
(Also reported in 677 N.W.2d 233.)
For the respondent-appellant-petitioner there were briefs by Donald R. Fraker and Fraker Law Firm, S.C., Mequon, and oral argument by Donald R. Fraker.
For the petitioner-respondent there was a brief by Janis M. Burgess and Wesley W. Hoffman & Associates, EC., Menominee, MI, and oral argument by Janis M. Burgess.
Motion for reconsideration denied 5-13-04.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
¶ 1. The court is equally divided on the question of whether the decision of the court of appeals, Hoyme v. Brakken, No. 02-1790, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. July 22, 2003), should be affirmed or reversed.
Justice JON E WILCOX, Justice N. PATRICK CROOKS, and Justice DAVID T. PROSSER would affirm; Chief Justice SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAM-SON, Justice ANN WALSH BRADLEY, and Justice PATIENCE D. ROGGENSACK would reverse. Justice DIANE S. SYKES did not participate.
¶ 2. Accordingly, the decision of the court of appeals is affirmed.