Marriage of Patterson CA5

Filed 4/4/13 Marriage of Patterson CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re the Marriage of STEVEN and KELLEE R. PATTERSON.

STEVEN PATTERSON, F064797

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. S-1501-FL-595369)

v. OPINION KELLEE R. PATTERSON,

Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Susan M. Gill, Judge. Law Offices of Michael G. York and Michael G. York for Appellant. The Law Office of Paige Etcheverry-Barnes and Paige Etcheverry-Barnes for Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Poochigian, J.

In connection with a marital dissolution action, respondent, Steven Patterson (Husband), filed an order to show cause requesting that he be awarded exclusive use and possession of the house he purchased before the marriage. Appellant, Kellee R. Patterson (Wife), responded that Husband was not entitled to retain possession of the property because (1) he stipulated that he would surrender possession of the house unless he prevailed at the trial of a separate civil action; and (2) that the separate civil action had been dismissed. The family law court granted Husband exclusive use and possession of the house. The court found that the stipulation was no longer valid and that Husband should remain in possession of the house in order to maintain the status quo. Wife challenges this order on the ground that Husband was bound by his stipulation to surrender possession of the house. According to Wife, the stipulation in the separate civil action was binding on the court in the dissolution action and therefore the family law court erred in not enforcing the stipulation. The family law court did not err as the issues are yet to be resolved by that court. The order will be affirmed. BACKGROUND In his application for the order for exclusive use and possession, Husband filed a declaration in support of his request. Husband declared that he had lived in the house since it was purchased in 1990. Husband and Wife were married in 1999. Husband explained that he and Wife agreed to the terms of a marital settlement agreement that included child support. According to Husband, he signed a promissory note in favor of Wife securing the child support obligation.1 However, the parties did not sign the marital