Carmichael v. Carmichael

California Court of Appeal · Civ. No. 10440 · 1961-12-20 · Published · 198 Cal. App. 2d 304 · 17 Cal. Rptr. 558 · 1961 Cal. App. LEXIS 2540

DORIS CARMICHAEL, and v. FRANK CARMICHAEL, and

Area: civil

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

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.

Cites, in this corpus

Wilson v. Wilson Civ. 12998 · 1946-09-18

Cited by

Carmichael v. Carmichael Civ. 10482 · 1963-05-28