Aug 27, 2016



FRIDAY, AUGUST 19, 2016 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) 521-6723 by 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 18, 2016. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear.    





Department 21


Law & Motion Tentative Ruling


August 19, 2016.






The motion is denied.

A party moving for reconsideration of a prior order must show new or different circumstances which could not have been argued at the prior hearing. CCP section 1008(b).  Additionally, the moving party must show that the exercise of reasonable diligence would not have discovered the alleged “new or different circumstances”

Petitioner first argues that had she known that husband’s income for the four years prior to the date of his retirement in April, 2016, had been approximate $200,000 a year, those facts could have been argued and, in the opinion of petitioner, would have been sufficient to persuade the court to make a different ruling. However, in the income and expense declaration filed by respondent on March 30, 2016, respondent stated that his monthly average monthly income was $17,916. Additionally, petitioner had been advised by respondent three years ago that he was planning to retire in April, 2016. Respondent’s pre-retirement level of income was therefore known to petitioner prior to the motion being argued on June 6, 2016. The fact of respondent’s prior income is therefore not a “new or different circumstance”

Petitioner next argues that the fact that respondent paid his attorney $4500 when the outstanding amount owed at that time with $3813.80 was not known to her prior to the receipt of additional discovery. However, the discovery responses which provided this information were not filed by petitioner at a date early enough to have this information provided to her prior to the hearing. The responses were due to be filed by respondent on the day of the hearing itself, June 6, 2016 and were timely delivered. Moreover, the fact that respondent had paid his attorney an additional $686.20 more than the then current amount owed would not have been sufficient to persuade this court to make a different ruling.

Respondent filed a notice of intent to seek sanctions pursuant to family code section 271. The court does not find that the actions of petitioner are sufficient to justify a sanction pursuant to that code section.




Appearances required.

         As one of the issues to be discussed, the Court requests parties to address the issue of whether Husband checking Box 6 of FL-315 protects Wife from any adverse consequences if Husband dies before Termination of the Marriage.

© 2016 Superior Court of Sonoma County