- Home
- Online Services Pay Fines, Transcripts...
- Forms & Filing Forms, Fee Schedule...
- Self-Help Self-Rep, Info, FAQs...
- Divisions Civil, Criminal, Family...
- General Info Local Rules, ADA, Maps...
Home » Online Services » Tentative Rulings » Familiy Law - Dept 21
Related Links
TENTATIVE RULINGS – FAMILY LAW Dept. 21
LAW & MOTION CALENDAR
FRIDAY, May 17, 2013 at 9:30 A.M.
COURTROOM #21 – Robert S. Boyd
(3055 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA)
Tentative Rulings
The following Tentative Rulings will become the ruling of the Court unless a party desires to be heard. If you desire to appear and present oral argument as to any motion, it will be necessary for you to contact the Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6732 by 4:00 p.m. on May 16, 2013. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear.
1. SFL 13162, Macias disso:
The Court has read paragraph 19 of the judgment filed on March 16, 2004 and paragraph 4 of the stipulation re: bifurcation filed on May 2, 2003. It is clear from review of those two documents that both spouses effectively terminated their right to seek spousal support from the other. Paragraph 4 of the stipulation did contain an agreement “Jose” would pay “Jeanette” an amount equal to one-half the sum which she must pay on the educational loan referred to in Exhibits B and C. Further, “Jose’s obligation shall under no circumstance be extended or modified and Jose’s obligation to pay spousal support shall be terminated forever.”
Based on a review of the language of these documents, the Court determines that the issue of resolving the educational loan issue would not under any circumstance reopen the issue of spousal support. Rights to spousal support were forever terminated in the language included in the documents.
Based on review of Petitioner’s motion, the Court does not understand if the Petitioner has in fact paid the educational loan and is seeking repayment or has not yet paid some or all of that loan. Based on a review of the documents, the Court determines that Respondent is responsible for one-half of the educational loan outstanding balance that was owed on August 9, 2004, to wit $6,424.58.
As to interest, the Court does not know whether Petitioner has in fact paid interest on this loan, as stated above. In addition to the principle of $6,424.58, Respondent shall be responsible for one-half of the interest actually paid by Petitioner as part of the repayment of this loan. Petitioner is to provide an analysis showing the actual payments and payment of interest made by Petitioner, and provide a copy of that analysis to Respondent within 30 days. Thereafter, Respondent is to refund one-half of that initial payment of $6,424.58 and one-half of all such interest payments. Such payments will be made in the amount of $200 per month starting on the first of the month after the parties agree upon the outstanding balance owed.
If the payment has not yet been repaid in full, Respondent will continue to pay one-half of whatever interest payments are required to pay the debt in full. If the debt has been paid in full, Respondent will pay no additional interest on the obligation he will be found to be owing to Petitioner.
As to the issue of the pension, it appears from Respondent’s declaration that he has not in fact decided to apply for his pension and does not intend to for some years. Respondent acknowledges his obligation to advise Petitioner when and if he does determine to seek his pension payments and is ordered to do so.
As to the issue of attorney fees, the Court believes that the parties were negotiating for a resolution of the issue. The delay of some eight plus years is not explained. The Court does not find a sufficient argument for Respondent to pay attorney fees. He therefore owes no attorney fees or costs.
2. SFL 40257, Steiding disso:
Motion denied. The Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Petitioner on 5/2/13 correctly analyzes the Court’s determination. The Court reviewed various California Court decisions to determine the correct definition of “cohabitation” to be used when performing an analysis under Family Code §4323. The Court did not analyze the issue of any decreased need for support by Petitioner which would have required an analysis of the Family Code §4320 factors as the parties had stipulated the only issue to be resolved was that of which Petitioner had cohabitated with a person of the opposite sex at Calle Ranchero Drive.
3. SFL 44278, Danley disso:
The Court received no opposition to Petitioner’s motion. Therefore, the Court will include the requested findings in the final Statement of Decision.
As to the request that a final Statement of Decision be issued, the Court will defer this until after the hearing scheduled for May 23, 2013 so that this Court’s determination following that hearing may be included in the final Statement of Decision.
4. SFL 49153, Lambert disso:
Motion granted. All objections to the requested discovery waived. Respondent to serve on Petitioner’s counsel complete, verified responses within 20 days of service of this order.
Petitioner’s counsel to file and serve an itemization of all attorney fees and costs charged because of the necessity of this motion. All such costs shall be awarded to Petitioner to be paid by Respondent.
