Court Opinion

ID: 9695486
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:20:52.909326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:13.241007
License: Public Domain

Beilfuss, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent insofar as the family court commissioner was permitted to take the testimony of the witness as to the question of jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction is a crucial determination of one of the essential elements prerequisite to a valid judgment and is not at all akin to the preliminary and temporary problems that arise during the pendency of the action. As to these preliminary matters the family court commissioner does have authority to enter temporary orders.
I construe the majority opinion to hold that issues of a divorce or annulment action are not subject to reference, but that in this instance it was not reference but more of a *570direction for a deposition. “Depositions properly taken are admissible in divorce actions.” Block v. Block (1960), 9 Wis. (2d) 378, 381, 101 N. W. (2d) 101. The record before us is void of any showing of a statutory right to a deposition.
Actions for divorce and annulment of marriage are somewhat different than the ordinary case in that the public has an interest in them and divorce hearings are required to be public. Sec. 247.12, Stats., provides:
“Trial procedure. In actions affecting marriage, all hearings and trials to determine whether judgment shall be granted shall be before the court. . . .”
I would hold that the court must hold a public hearing to determine the question of jurisdiction and no authority exists to permit him to delegate others to conduct the hearing even for the limited purpose of just taking the testimony.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Hallows joins in this dissent.