Opinion ID: 2076775
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Exclusive Use and Possession of Rittenhouse

Text: The court determined that Rittenhouse was Wheeler's separate property. The court then rejected Bansda's request for exclusive use and possession of the property. The court held that there was no basis in law or fact warranting exclusive use and possession of the Rittenhouse Property to the defendant. The court also observed that, although it need not consider Bansda's economic and educational status, Bansda did not show that she was unable to obtain adequate housing on her own; rather, [s]he is an educated person with experience in the television industry and in business. This determination was not an abuse of discretion where D.C.Code § 16-910(a) requires the court to assign to each party his or her sole and separate property acquired prior to the marriage.