Carmichael v. Carmichael

California Court of Appeal

Carmichael v. Carmichael

198 Cal. App. 2d 304, 17 Cal. Rptr. 558, 1961 Cal. App. LEXIS 2540

California Court of Appeal·Decided December 20, 1961·No. Civ. No. 10440·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

THE COURT.—

It is the conclusion of the court that the clear implication of the decree is that plaintiff should have immediate occupancy of the property in question. While her title to the property would not be complete until the decree became final and would be defeated by death or reconciliation during the interlocutory period, we hold that reason, common sense and authority entitle her in the meantime to the right to possession of the property awarded to her. (Wilson v. Wilson, 76 Cal.App.2d 119, 132 [172 P.2d 568]; Code Civ. Proc., § 945.) The order heretofore made staying any further proceedings is hereby discharged and the petition for supersedeas is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.—

It is the conclusion of the court that the clear implication of the decree is that plaintiff should have immediate occupancy of the property in question. While her title to the property would not be complete until the decree became final and would be defeated by death or reconciliation during the interlocutory period, we hold that reason, common sense and authority entitle her in the meantime to the right to possession of the property awarded to her. (Wilson v. Wilson, 76 Cal.App.2d 119, 132 [172 P.2d 568]; Code Civ. Proc., § 945.) The order heretofore made staying any further proceedings is hereby discharged and the petition for supersedeas is denied.

Carmichael v. Carmichael, 198 Cal. App. 2d 304, 17 Cal. Rptr. 558, 1961 Cal. App. LEXIS 2540 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

198 Cal. App. 2d 304 (Carmichael v. Carmichael) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related