Dec 07, 2016

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULING – FAMILY LAW Dept. 23 

JUDGE BRADFORD J. DEMEO
IN COURTROOM 23
FRIDAY, December 2, 2016 @ 9:30 A.M.

 

 

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., Thursday, December 1, 2016. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear. 

  

  

Department 23

 

Law & Motion Tentative Rulings

 

December 2, 2016

 

IRMO Lammam SFL-53704

 

            Petitioner’s Motion to Enforce is Denied.   Respondent’s Motion to Vacate Granted in part, Denied in part.  The motion is denied with respect to the request to vacate the stipulation containing the 15-month deadline for refinancing or selling, but it is granted with respect to the portion seeking to defer the refinance or sale until one year from the date the youngest son graduates from high school, which the court finds to be a reasonable and clear timeline.

            The court notes that the parties did enter into the stipulation, as Respondent admits, but in the stipulation Respondent agreed to add a 15-month deadline for refinancing or selling the home, in essence in return for nothing to which Respondent was not already entitled under the stipulated judgment.  Petitioner only agreed to sign a quitclaim deed, which merely stated what the judgment already stated. 

            Respondent explains that he only agreed to this stipulation because he needed the quitclaim deed as evidence of Petitioner’s lack of interest in the home, already determined in the judgment, in order to modify the loan to be affordable.  The court finds that the record clearly supports Respondent’s claim that he therefore entered into the stipulation only under duress. 

            The court also finds that enforcement of the 15-month deadline is otherwise unnecessary at this point to protect Petitioner, as Respondent has been paying the loan, and would be arbitrary, unjust, and punitive, serving no meaningful purpose and only causing injury to Respondent, and particularly to the children.

 

IRMO Balzer SFL62800

 

          The Request for Order to enter Judgment pursuant to CCP 664.6 is GRANTED.  The proposed Judgment attached as Exhibit A to the request for order shall be entered as the Judgment in this case.  The terms of the settlement agreement were put on the court record with both parties agreement under oath.  The proposed judgment conforms to those terms.  Wife requested new terms to the settlement agreement and judgment after the court date on which the terms of judgment were entered on the court record.  This court finds that wife’s requests are not sufficient to prevent entry of judgment, and her conduct is unreasonable.  Attorney fees are awarded to Husband in the amount request pursuant to Family Code 271, to be paid in full not later than January 1, 2017. 

 

IRMO Torres SFL71231

 

            The motion to be relieved as counsel is GRANTED. 

 

IRMO Robbins/Soleway SFL72418

 

            Due to a calendaring error the motion to bifurcate scheduled for December 2, 2016, in Department 21, has been rescheduled and continued to Friday, December 16, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., in Department 23. 

 

 

 

 

© 2016 Superior Court of Sonoma County