Carmichael v. Carmichael

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““ [T]hat 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. ...” (Carmichael v. Carmichael, 198 Cal.App.2d 304 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 558 ].) “ . . It would appear that a proper solution of this problem would be to hold that the interlocutory may make a present disposition of the community property, but that the title thus conveyed is limited and conditional until the entry of the final decree, , , , In the present case it was, of course, proper for the trial court to determine in its interlocutory the status of the property and how it ought to be assigned upon the entering of the final decree.’ In the present case justice will be best served by amending the decree so as to provide that the disposition of the property and the judgment relating thereto shall become effective upon the entry of the final decree.” (Dallman v. Dallman, 164 Cal.App.2d 815, 820 [ 331 P.2d 245 ].)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 216 Cal. App. 2d 674 - Carmichael v. Carmichael