Marriage of Patterson
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 The court found that the stipulation was no longer valid and that Husband should remain in possession of the house in order to maintain the status quo.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.
Comments on Marriage of Patterson