December 13, 2018

Family Law Tentative Ruling Announcements

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

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: 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: December 13, 2018                             

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

FL-18-001336- HILL VS. CHAFFIN

Respondent’s request for order (RFO) for venue and name change changing the minor child’s name—DENIED FOR LACK OF SERVICE

Service of the RFO is defective.  Attempts at personal service were ineffective, and the proof of service by mail is ineffective as it gave less than 16 court days’ notice (including time for service).  Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1005, subd. (b), 1013, subd. (a).)  Also, the court notes no proof of service of the summons and petition has been filed. The RFO is denied without prejudice on service grounds unless respondent appears and waives service defects.

Upon proof of service, however, the court is inclined to grant the request to change venue.  The court notes the filing of this request stays the action.  (See, e.g., Mission Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 921, 924, n. 3.)  Petitioner is asking to change venue based on the convenience of witnesses, which is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 397, subdivision (c). On such an inquiry, the convenience of the parties, as opposed to their witnesses, is not a factor, absent illness or physical disability.  (Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594, 612.)  However, the inconvenience to the children, as potential witnesses, can also be considered.  (Silva v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 301.)  Here, the court sees no reason to deny the venue change given that petitioner and the minor child live in Sacramento County, and that petitioner has sole legal and physical custody of the child.  The request for a change in the child’s name will have to be addressed by the court in Sacramento County.

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


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


Petitioner’s request for orders (RFO) re omitted asset—DENIED. No proof of service filed.

If proper proof of service is submitted, the following is the Court’s tentative ruling on the merits of the motion: Petitioner indicates the judgment in this case omitted reference to a residence that is owned at least in part by the community.  She asks the court to grant her exclusive use of this residence, to require respondent to sign a grant deed with respect to the property, and to appoint an elisor to sign in respondent’s stead because he is expected to object.  As she presents evidence that she has been living on and paying for the residence for several years now, and in the absence of current objection from respondent, the court grants the request that petitioner have exclusive use of the real property located at 1000 E. Springer Drive in Turlock.  Respondent is not to enter this property without petitioner’s advance knowledge and consent. 

However, the court requires additional information before it can adjudicate petitioner’s remaining requests.  While petitioner has demonstrated the existence of an asset that was not encompassed in the judgment, she has provided no information allowing the court to characterize and divide this asset.  (See Fam. Code, § 2556 [“A party may file a postjudgment motion or order to show cause in the proceeding in order to obtain adjudication of any community estate asset or liability omitted or not adjudicated by the judgment. In these cases, the court shall equally divide the omitted or unadjudicated community estate asset or liability, unless the court finds upon good cause shown that the interests of justice require an unequal division of the asset or liability.”].)  The parties are to appear to discuss what steps the court must take to adjudicate the omitted asset, taking into account any all credits that might be due to either party.  Petitioner’s request for appointment of an elisor is denied.  She has established no need for or entitlement to a grant deed at present, and the RFO fails to attach a copy of the proposed deed.  (Super. Ct. Stanislaus County, Local Rules, rule 7.05.2.)

The alleged agreement signed by the parties is not enforceable. Respondent’s signature is not notarized as required by Family Code §2338.5 (a) and Local Rule 7.57 B. 12. Furthermore, petitioner has not identified with any specificity the other alleged omitted community assets and debts.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Kellee Westbrook in Department #25: