Case Name: DORIS CARMICHAEL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANK CARMICHAEL, Defendant and Appellant
Court: District Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction: California
Decision Date: 1961-12-20
Citations: 198 Cal. App. 2d 304
Docket Number: Civ. No. 10440
Parties: DORIS CARMICHAEL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANK CARMICHAEL, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: California Appellate Reports, Second Series
Volume: 198
Pages: 304–304

Head Matter:
[Civ. No. 10440.
Third Dist.
Dec. 20, 1961.]
DORIS CARMICHAEL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. FRANK CARMICHAEL, Defendant and Appellant.
Manwell & Manwell, Theodore G. Elges, Bradford, Cross, Dahl & Hefner and John Laugenour for Defendant and Appellant.
Steel and Arostegui and Robert Steel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

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.