November 22, 2017

A A A
Family Law Tentative Ruling Announcements
Print

Please note that the family court issues tentative ruling announcements on the court day prior to the scheduled hearing for specific types of motions. Tentative rulings are only provided on the Internet and posted in the clerk’s office lobby. Internet postings occur at 1:30pm daily at www.stanct.org.

Parties are not required to give notice of intent to appear to preserve the right to a hearing. The tentative ruling will not become final until the hearing. (Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1) However, as a courtesy to the Court, and other parties or counsel with matters on calendar, notice of intended appearance or non-appearance is encouraged and may be sent by e-mail to the following address: familylaw.tentatives@stanct.org between the hours of 1:30 P.M. and 4:00 P.M. If you do not receive a confirmation e-mail from the clerk, you may call to speak directly with a Calendar Clerk at 209-530-3107.

Any party filing pleadings or documents on a tentative ruling matter within five (5) days of the hearing should provide a courtesy copy to the Courtroom Clerk and the Court’s Family Law Research Attorney by placing a copy in the drop box slot on the door of Room 223, Second Floor of the main Courthouse. Failure to do so may prevent the Court from consideration of such, may result in a continuance, and/or may be considered in the award of conduct-based fees and costs. (Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1(B).)

All parties and counsel are required to meet and confer in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute on any request, motion or hearing, with the exception of those involving domestic violence, and to exchange any documents upon which reliance will be made at the hearing. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98; Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1(C).) Failure to do so may result in a continuance and may be considered in the award of conduct-based fees and costs, or both. If sufficient information regarding an adequate pre-hearing meet and confer effort is not provided in the moving and opposing papers, in the Court’s discretion, the matter may be placed at the end of the calendar and not called until the parties or counsel advise the Court that they have complied with their obligations and/or resolved the matter.

Date: November 27, 2017


The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Alan Cassidy in Department #11:

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES


The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Valli K. Israels in Department #13:

 8008081 - PERCEY VS PERCEY

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Deposit of Disputed Funds to Trust—APPEARANCE REQUIRED.

It is unclear from Petitioner’s showing whether post-separation earnings or other non-community deposits were made to the subject account.  Petitioner’s claim of no income conflicts with her previously filed Income and Expense Declaration and Petitioner did not file and serve a more current form with her motion, as ordinarily required.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.92.)  Petitioner’s complaints of income disparity may be more appropriately and expediently addressed with a pendente lite request for spousal support and/or attorney’s fees and costs.  That said, assuming the community nature of the account, which does not appear disputed, Petitioner does demonstrate that there were withdrawals for purely separate property purposes by Respondent.  As such, the Court is inclined to order the remaining balance transferred to the attorney-client trust account of Petitioner’s counsel in order to ensure preservation of funds pending disposition, absent other agreement.  (Fam. C. §§ 2045(b), 2047(a).)  The parties are ordered to exchange current Income and Expense declarations and provide copies to the Court at the hearing, to be filed subsequently filed and served.  The parties are further ordered to meet and confer as to appropriate preservation of the disputed funds and whether temporary support or fee orders may obviate the dispute; all documents intended to be relied upon at the hearing must also be exchanged.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.98.)  The matter will not be considered on the merits until counsel advise the Court regarding completion of their good faith settlement efforts.


The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Jack M. Jacobson in Department # 14:

 456569 – COONCE V. COONCE

Third-Party’s Notice of Motion re Joinder— DENIED, without prejudice.

Proof of service does not demonstrate adequate notice. (Code Civ. Proc. §1005(b).)  While Petitioner has filed a Responsive Declaration and does not appear to object to notice or service, there is no indication that Respondent has been served.  Unless the parties appear and waive such defects, Third Party will be required to seek reissuance.

Mandatory joinder is not available in this situation due to the post-judgment status of the proceedings.  (Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.71.1(B)(3).)  Accordingly, this matter is governed by Fam. Code §3104.  (In re Marriage of Harris (2004) 34 Cal.4th 210, 222.)  Before ordering the joinder of a grandparent of a minor child in the proceeding under Family Code §3104, the Court must take the actions described in section 3104(a).  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.24(e) (1) (B); Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.71.1(B)(3).) 

The Self-Help Center offers free help to people who are representing themselves in Court in a variety of legal matters.  Assistance is provided daily on a walk-in first-come, first-served basis.  Office Hours are Monday – Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., and Fridays 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm.  Location:  800 11th Street, Room 220, Modesto, California.


The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Loretta Murphy Begen in Department #25:

8004724 - PILGER VS PILGER

Petitioner’s Request for Order re “Re-Open Case”—DENIED, without prejudice.

There is no authorized motion to “re-open” a case.  This action was involuntarily dismissed following Petitioner’s repeated failures to appear and prosecute the action.  Such an order terminates the Court’s jurisdiction absent a valid motion for relief.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 581d; Lakkees v. Superior Court (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 531, 540; Gogri v. Jack In The Box Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 255, 261.)  A motion for relief from dismissal is authorized within six (6) months based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b).)  While timely, Petitioner’s motion does not assert any authorized basis.  However, there is still time for Petitioner to do so, but something more will be required than the mere allegation that there was an “on and off again” reconciliation.  Alternatively, nothing prevents Petitioner from filing a new action.

The Self-Help Center offers free help to people who are representing themselves in Court in a variety of legal matters.  Assistance is provided daily on a walk-in first-come, first-served basis.  Office Hours are Monday – Thursday, 8:00 a.m. to noon and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., and Fridays 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm.  Location:  800 11th Street, Room 220, Modesto, California.