Brown v. Brown

HERNDON, J.

Defendant husband appeals from an interlocutory judgment of divorce rendered in favor of plaintiff-respondent Erma Marie Brown. His sole contention is that the trial court erred in attempting to make an immediately

[388]

effective division of the community property of the parties by means of the interlocutory judgment.

The operative facts are simple and undisputed. The community property of the parties included certain household furnishings and 30,000 shares of a closely held California corporation known as Western Stamping, Inc., registered in the name of the husband. The wife sued for divorce, charging extreme cruelty and habitual intemperance. On May 8, 1959, the wife was granted an interlocutory decree of divorce which contained the following language: “It Is Further Adjudged that the 30,000 outstanding shares in the name of defendant Joseph James Brown of that certain California corporation known as Western Stamping, Inc., are the community property of the parties hereto, and that 15,000 shares of said corporation shall

forthwith

be transferred to plaintiff to be registered in her name alone as her sole and separate property, and said 15,000 shares shall have full voting rights. In the event either plaintiff or defendant shall decide to sell their 15,000 shares or any part thereof, then before said sale is consummated to any person, company or corporation, the party to this action who has not decided to sell shall have first right of purchasing said stock from the selling party.

“It Is Furthur Adjudged that the household furniture is the common property of the parties hereto, and the same

is hereby

awarded to plaintiff." (Emphasis supplied.)

Appellant does not question the fairness of the division of the community property of the parties, but contends only that the trial court should not have made such division immediately effective upon the entry of the interlocutory judgment. The controlling authorities compel us to sustain appellant’s contention.

During the continuance of the marriage relation, the husband has the right to control and manage the community personalty, subject to certain restrictions not here material. (Civ. Code, §§ 161a, 172.) An interlocutory judgment of divorce is not a decree of divorce and the parties continue to be husband and wife until the entry of a final decree of divorce.