Jul 20, 2017

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULING – FAMILY LAW Dept. 23 

JUDGE SHELLY J. AVERILL
IN COURTROOM 23
FRIDAY, July 21, 2017 @ 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, July 20, 2017. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear. 

  

  

 

 

 

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS

DEPARTMENT 23

JUDGE SHELLY AVERILL

July 21, 2017

 

1.     SFL 75112-IRMO Tubbs:  Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §284 the Court GRANTS the request of Marshall Bluestone to be relieved as counsel for Respondent Leo Tubbs.

 

2.     SFL 75428-Mandujano v. Aquarian:  Respondent/Father (hereinafter “Father”) has declared that he is an “extraordinarily high earner” and is willing to pay any reasonable child support amount requested.  Father has further asserted that he is not required to complete an Income and Expense Declaration or respond to discovery regarding his income.  Father cites Estevez v. Superior Court (1994) 22 CA4th 423 to support his position.  Petitioner/Mother (hereinafter “Mother”) has not conceded either the amount of Father’s income or the amount of child support.  “…the rule in Estevez-that an extraordinarily high earner’s financial information need not be disclosed where he stipulated he can and will pay any reasonable amount of child support-has been limited to cases in which the parties agree on the appropriate amount of child support.” IRMO Hubner (2001) 94 CA4th 175.  “The trial court must first resolve any disputed income issues, then calculate presumptively-correct formula support, and then, based on the financial information and standard of living evidence, to at least approximate the point at which formula support would exceed the children’s needs so as to be able to identify the ultimate point at which the obligor’s income becomes extraordinarily high…” The Rutter Group, Family Law, Hogoboom & King [6:259.6]. “The steps set forth above cannot be circumvented by the high earner’s stipulation of ability and willingness to pay any reasonable support.  Except where there is no dispute over the child support amount.”      The Rutter Group, Family Law, Hogoboom & King [6:259.7]. In the instant matter there is a dispute as to the amount of support and there is no stipulation as to the amount of Father’s income.  Father shall comply with California Rule of Court 5.92 in filing and serving a completed Income and Expense Declaration within 15 days.  This matter shall be placed back on the Domestic Calendar of August 30, 2017 at 1:30 in Department 23.  In the event that either party requests oral argument regarding this tentative ruling pursuant to the local court rules, the oral argument will occur on August 4, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 23.        

 

© 2017 Superior Court of Sonoma County