Fear Not Law Articles: Sykes v. Sykes

Sykes v

Sykes v. Sykes

Filed 1/10/07 Sykes v. Sykes CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

DOUGLAS SYKES,

Cross-Respondent,

GWENDOLYN ROWE-LEE SYKES,

Cross-Appellant.

A109092

(Alameda County

Super. Ct. No. C-850186)

Gwendolyn Rowe-Lee Sykes cross-appeals from an order denying her application for a residence exclusion order against cross-respondent Douglas Sykes under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.) (Act).[1] We affirm the order because cross-respondent has sole right of possession to the residence in question under the parties' premarital agreement, and under the unusual circumstances of this case the cross-appeal is essentially moot. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the residence exclusion order.

I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The parties refer to themselves by their first names (â€

Description	Appellant cross appeals from an order denying her application for a residence exclusion order against cross respondent under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Fam. Code, S 6200 et seq.) (Act). Court affirm the order because cross respondent has sole right of possession to the residence in question under the parties' premarital agreement, and under the unusual circumstances of this case the cross appeal is essentially moot. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the residence exclusion order.
Rating	0/5 1 2 3 4 5 0/5 based on 0 votes.