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. Thursday,  July 24, 2014.  Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear.    

1.                 SFL 16873, Spichtig vs. Spichtig:

Respondent/Husband’s motion to Quash the Qualified Domestic Relation’s order (QDRO) is denied.

 

The Parties Marital Settlement Agreement specifically confirms to Petitioner/Wife her community property share of the Teamsters Pension Plan.

 

The agreement states at provision 3.14:

“The community has an interest in Husband’s pension fund through the Teamsters Pension Plan, and is to begin receiving monthly payments at age 65; the parties agree that wife is entitled to $280 of Husband’s pension which will be provided to wife under a QDRO to be prepared by George McCauslan.”

 

Wife’s share of the pension fund is in the form of a division of a community asset.  It is not spousal support.

 

 

2.                 SFL 57794, Synder vs. Saldana:

Respondent/Father’s request for correction or reconsideration of order will be granted, in part.

 

The Court will order that a transcript of the hearing of June 23, 2014, be prepared.  The Court will review the transcript taking into consideration Respondent/Father’s request for relief.

 

Respondent/Father’s request for correction or rehearing is set for further proceedings to the Law & Motion calendar of: 8-22-14 at 9:30 a.m., in Dept. 22.

3.                  SFL 61291, Baxter vs. Drummond:

Attorney for Petitioner’s Motion to be relieved as Attorney of Record is denied.  The matter is imminent by set for trial.

 

 

4.                  SFL 63881, Valdivia vs. Verdu:

Attorney’s motion to Be Relieved as Counsel for Casey Verdu is granted.

 

5.                 SFL 63884 Peyton vs. Means:

Petitioner’s Request for Order to Vacate the Court’s orders of April 15, 2014 is denied.

 

This court ruled that Respondent’s military housing allowance,  under factual circumstances presented at trial, should not be imputed to his income for purposes of child support. 

 

The issue was thoroughly briefed by both parties.  Both  Petitioner and Respondent presented evidence on the issue.  And, the issue was argued at the conclusion of the court trial.

The court did consider the issue in rendering it’s ruling.