Opinion ID: 2063087
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: was there a final judgment from which an appeal might be taken?

Text: William Schroff argues that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal claiming there was no final judgment entered in the trial court in this matter. He would characterize the trial court's modification of family support payments as a non-appealable intermediate order, rather than a final judgment because the trial court gave Mrs. Schroff an opportunity to make a later appearance and put additional evidence into the record. Sec. 247.25, Stats. 1975, [1] provides that a court may modify child support payments upon a showing of changed circumstances, and make a new judgment concerning the same as the circumstances of the parents and the benefit of the children shall require. The trial court made such a judgment which was entered September 19, 1977 to take effect immediately. It further provided, this payment schedule shall become final and fixed unless the wife presents herself to the court, before the Honorable John F. Foley . . . on January 30, 1978, at 2 o'clock p.m. [1] When a judgment or appealable order is entered in the trial court, subject matter jurisdiction is vested in the appellate court from that time, whether or not the appeal is taken from the appealable matter. Walford v. Bartsch, 65 Wis.2d 254, 262, 222 N.W.2d 633 (1974); sec. 817.11 (4), Stats. 1975. [2] [2] The judgment reducing support payments was in fact a judgment and was so designated. It was filed September 19, 1977 and took effect immediately. This court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.