CARMICHAEL v. CARMICHAEL (1961)

District Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Doris CARMICHAEL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Frank CARMICHAEL, Defendant and Appellant.

Civ. 10440.

Decided: December 20, 1961

Manwell & Manwell, Marysville, Theodore G. Elges, Quincy, Bradford, Cross, Dahl & Hefner, by John Laugenour, Sacramento, for appellant. Steel & Arostegui, by Robert Steel, Marysville, for respondent.

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.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network