Carmichael v. Carmichael

California Court of Appeal Dec 20, 1961 No. Civ. No. 10440Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a plaintiff awarded property in an interlocutory decree is entitled to immediate possession of that property pending the finality of the decree.

Issues

Whether a plaintiff is entitled to immediate occupancy of property awarded in an interlocutory decree before the decree becomes final.

Disposition. Petition for supersedeas denied; stay discharged.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we hold that reason, common sense and authority entitle her in the meantime to the right to possession of the property awarded to her.”

“The order heretofore made staying any further proceedings is hereby discharged and the petition for supersedeas is denied.”

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

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief