Court Opinion

ID: 9580278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:03:43.074289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:10.948904
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). In the court’s opinion we declined to examine the claim of error that the trial court failed to consider those facts which the plaintiff demanded be admitted. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the plaintiff’s objections were properly preserved although not incorporated in a specific motion. *314aWells v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co. (1967), 274 Wis. 505, 518, 80 N. W. 2d 380, makes it clear that the error need not be specifically denominated as such in motion papers so long as the record shows that the error alleged was called to the trial court's attention by brief or oral argument. In the instant case the trial court was apprised of the claimed error and chose not to alter its ruling. While this was error and the facts sought to be admitted should have been allowed in evidence, we conclude that the error does not affect the results of the appeal.
The trial judge stated that he concluded that the defendant was entirely at fault. It is apparent that he made his decision upon this basis, and, of course, must now make the division of property bearing in mind the defendant’s culpability, though not to the extent that the process of property division is used as a club to punish the offending spouse. Spheeris v. Spheeris. post, p. 497, 155 N. W. 2d 130.
Nor do we see that the plaintiff was harmed by the other errors alleged. The trial court indicated that the prior knowledge he had of the parties’ conduct was unfavorable to the husband. Under this state of the record we see no reason why the plaintiff wife should complain, and no objection has been made by the husband.
The motion for rehearing is denied without costs.