Family Law Tentative Rulings - Courtroom 23
Judge Shelly J. Averill
Law & Motion Calendar
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 department’s Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6729 by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. Any party requesting an appearance must notify all other opposing parties of their intent to appear.
PLEASE NOTE: If argument is requested in this matter you may appear in person or remotely via Zoom. To appear via Zoom please see the Zoom information below.
To appear online via Zoom please use the following link:
- Join the Sonoma County Court Zoom hearing
- Passcode: 611386
To appear via Zoom by phone:
- Call: +1 669-254-5252
- Enter the Meeting ID: 160-825-4529
- Passcode: 611386
Law & Motion Tentative Rulings
April 17, 2026
9:30 am
1. SFL64305, Piper Dissolution
APPEARANCES REQUIRED with respect to the Motion for Order of Clarification re Domestic Relations Order terms. The parties must present admissible evidence demonstrating all of the potential successors in interest of Petitioner with respect to the Plan. Until the court has made the necessary determinations in that regard, it is unable to reach the substantive merits of this motion.
However, at this time, the court does order that Jeannie Calverly Ireland, aka Jeannie Piper Ireland, and Jillian Hernandez to be successors in interest to Petitioner and order them substituted into this action as such.
Facts
Petitioner filed this action for dissolution of marriage without minor children on September 10, 2013. Following Petitioner’s request for entry of default, the court entered judgment on October 31, 2013. Following a request for joinder of the Sonoma County Employees Retirement Association (“SCERA”) with respect to Respondent’s retirement plan (the “Plan”) with SCERA, SCERA appeared on December 12, 2013. The court issued a Domestic Relations Order (“DRO”) regarding the Plan on March 10, 2014.
Following the entry of the DRO, no further litigation activity occurred in this action until October 9, 2025, when Respondent filed a Request for Order (“RFO”) and Motion for Order of Clarification re Domestic Relations Order terms. She represented that Petitioner had died on July 14, 2025. The motion was originally set for January 15, 2026. At that hearing, Respondent was present with her attorney and Jillian Hernandez (“Hernandez”) was also present as successor in interest to Petitioner. The court continued the matter to April 3, 2026, pending a jurisdictional issue. The court required briefs to be filed by March 16, 2026, and response by March 27, 2026. The court later continued the hearing to April 17, 2026, due to court operational needs.
Motion
In her RFO and Motion for Order of Clarification re Domestic Relations Order terms, Respondent asks the court to “clarify” the terms of the DRO, but in effect to modify the terms of the DRO as entered, in order to be consistent with the parties’ marital settlement agreement (“MSA”) as set forth in the Judgment. This, she contends, prevented Petitioner from naming anyone other than Respondent as his beneficiary for his share of the Plan payments. However, she argues, Petitioner breached this agreement and the Judgment by naming someone else as his beneficiary.
Hernandez opposes this motion as successor in interest to Petitioner. She asserts that she is the daughter of Petitioner and argues that the provision of the DRO at issue expressly allowed Petitioner to choose a beneficiary for his share of the Plan and that the DRO was entered after the parties entered into the MSA. Hernandez purportedly filed her opposition on behalf of herself and one Jeannie Calverly Ireland (“Ireland”), identifying Ireland as another daughter and successor in interest of Petitioner. However, Ireland did not sign his document and nothing on its face indicates that Ireland was involved in it.
Ireland, identifying herself as Jeannie Piper Ireland, has also filed another opposition to the motion on her own behalf. She confirms that she also is a daughter of Petitioner and that Respondent served her with the moving papers as a successor in interest to Petitioner. However, she states that she had no involvement in Hernandez’s opposition and did not authorize that document. Like Hernandez, however, she opposes the request, arguing that Petitioner was not of sound mind and that the court lacks jurisdiction so that the issue must be addressed in a probate proceeding.
Applicable Authority
According to the Family Law Rules of the California Rules of Court (“CRC”) 5.2(d), and Family Code (“Fam. Code”) section 210, provisions applicable to civil actions generally apply to proceedings under the Family Code unless otherwise provided. This includes the rules applicable to civil actions in the California Rules of Court and the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”). See, e.g., In re Marriage of Boblitt (2014) 223 Cal.App. 4th 1004, at 1022 (discovery); In re Marriage of Zimmerman (2 Dist. 2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 900, at 910-911 (discussing the applicability of Code of Civil Procedure section 473 when a party seeks relief from orders in family proceedings).
Domestic Relations Orders Disposing of Interests in Retirement Plans
A family court has jurisdiction to modify a DRO, even if it is a QDRO which must meet the requirements for ERISA, upon the nonemployee spouse’s death to reassign that spouse's share of the retirement benefits, divided by the prior dissolution judgment, to the surviving employee spouse. See Marriage of Rich (1999) 73 Cal.App, 4th 419, 423.
“Governmental plans” are exempt from ERISA coverage. 29 USC section 1003(b); Graham v. Hartford Life & Acc. Ins. (10th Cir.2009) 589 F.3d 1345, 1353. As explained in Graham, ‘an employee benefit plan is exempt from the provisions of Title I [ERISA] if it qualifies as a “governmental plan.”’ 29 USC section 1003 sets forth the coverage of ERISA. Subdivision (b)(1) specifies plans which are exempt from ERISA coverage and states, in pertinent part, that “[t]he provisions of this subchapter shall not apply to any employee benefit plan” as long as “such plan is a governmental plan (as defined in section 1002(32) of this title).” According to 29 USC section 1002 (32), ‘[t]he term “governmental plan” means a plan established or maintained for its employees by the Government of the United States, by the government of any State or political subdivision thereof, or by any agency or instrumentality of any of the foregoing.’
Death of a Party to a Family Proceeding
A party’s death following entry of judgment does not deprive the family court of jurisdiction, even if the court has not resolved outstanding reserved issues such as property division. Fam.C. section 2334(g) (addressing death after entry of judgment terminating status and expressly reserving jurisdiction over all other pending issues); Marriage of Hilke (1992) 4 Cal.4th 215, 220.
A decedent’s “successor in interest” is “the beneficiary of the decedent’s estate or other successor in interest who succeeds to a cause of action or to a particular item of the property that is the subject of a cause of action.” CCP section 377.11. The “beneficiary of the decedent’s estate” means all of the beneficiaries of the decedent’s will who succeed to a cause of action or particular item of property, or, if the decedent left no will, all the persons who succeed to a cause of action or the subject property item under the laws of intestate succession. CCP section 377.10. CCP sections 377.31 and 377.41 allow, upon a motion for substitution, a pending action or proceeding which does not abate upon death to be continued by or against the “decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest.” See also In re Marriage of Mallory (1997) 55 Cal.App. 4th 1165, 1179 (addressing proceedings involving executor of a deceased party who substituted into the proceedings).
Hernandez and Ireland
The court must resolve the identity and standing of Hernandez and Ireland, who both oppose this motion. The courts notes the issues which they have had in attempting to file papers in this action and oppose this motion, as they set forth in their papers, because they are not named parties to this action. The court has already determined to allow them to file their responsive papers, following initial rejection. As explained above, an appropriate party may appear in an action as, among other things, a successor in interest to a deceased party upon a proper motion and determination. As of yet, there has been no such formal motion or determination that Hernandez or Ireland may appear as a successor in interest to Petitioner.
First, the court finds “Jeannie Piper Ireland” and “Jeannie Calverly Ireland” to be one and the same person, identified in this order as “Ireland.”
The court considers the papers before it to present motions to find Hernandez and Ireland to be allowed to appear in this action as successors in interest to Petitioner for the purposes of the interests in the Plan solely. The papers demonstrate that Hernandez and Ireland are in fact successors in interest to Petitioner for the purposes of the interests in the Plan The papers also demonstrate that both of them and Respondent all agree that this is so. Respondent served Hernandez and Ireland as successors in interest to Petitioner. Respondent also asserts in her papers that Hernandez and Ireland are the daughters of Petitioner and successors in interest to Petitioner and accordingly she formally requests the court to substitute them in as successors in interest pursuant to CCP section 377.41. See Respondent’s Brief in Support of Family Court Jurisdiction. Hernandez and Ireland themselves both demonstrate that they are the daughters of Petitioner and his successors in interest and they seek to appear as such in this action. The court accordingly finds Hernandez and Ireland to be successors in interest to Petitioner and orders them to be substituted into this action as such.
On this issue, however, there remains one more determination which this court must make before it is able to reach the substantive merits of this motion, and that is whether there are any other possible successors in interest entitled to notice and opportunity to appear. The parties discuss the matter as if only Hernandez and Ireland have an interest as successors in interest, but while the evidence is more than sufficient to establish them as successors in interest, there is no evidence before the court to support a finding that they are the only successors in interest. No party provides a copy of Petitioner’s beneficiary designation or any other evidence whatsoever, as to whom Petitioner named as a beneficiary. The court therefore requires the parties to demonstrate conclusively with evidence that there is no other named beneficiary of Petitioner under the Plan or a successor in interest with respect to the interest in the Plan. Since this court is limiting its determinations to the rights under the Plan as well as the DRO and Judgment with respect to the Plan, the parties need not address others who may be successors in interest for other interests outside the scope of this motion. However, they must provide such evidence before the court is able to continue. The parties may provide this evidence to the court at the hearing and absent objection the court will consider it at the hearing. However, if they fail to do so, or if the court finds there to be an objection or other basis preventing it from making a determination on this point at the hearing, the court will be forced to continue the matter.
The Judgment and DRO
The Judgment was entered on October 31, 2013 and based on an MSA. The court no longer has a copy of this Judgment or MSA or the DRO in the court records. Respondent has attached to the RFO, as Ex. A to RFO Attachment 9 (“Piper Dec.”), a purported copy of the Judgment and the MSA on which it is based and which it incorporates and, as Ex.B, a purported copy of the DRO.
According to the purported Judgment, Petitioner was awarded the property described in Exhibit A to the MSA. That document states, as Respondent claims, that Petitioner was awarded as his sole and separate property “$1,100.00 per month, plus cost-of-living adjustment(s), if any, from Sonoma County Employees’ Retirement Association. Husband shall name Wife as the beneficiary under the Plan. A Domestic Relations Order will be prepared.”
The DRO document states that the DRO and the Plan are not subject to ERISA because the Plan is a “governmental plan” exempt from ERISA and therefore from the requirements for a QDRO. It states that both parties had acquired a community interest in Respondent’s Plan, with Petitioner being the “Nonmember” and Respondent the “Member.” It states that on Petitioner’s death, “any retirement benefits which would have been paid by SCERA to Nonmember, if Nonmember were still alive will be paid instead to Member. Nonmember may designate a beneficiary to receive such benefits, pursuant to Government Code section 31458.4.” It also states, at ¶13, “The Court reserves jurisdiction to enforce, revise, modify or amend this Order….”
The court finds the documents which Respondent provides to be true and accurate copies of the documents which Respondent claims them to be, specifically the Judgment, MSA, and DRO. They appear to be the filed documents on their face, with no indicia to the contrary. Moreover, at this time, Respondent, Hernandez, and Ireland all appear to agree that these are in fact the documents which Respondent claims them to be.
Application of ERISA and QDRO Requirements
The court finds that ERISA does not apply to this Plan or the DRO. As explained above, the DRO document states that it is not a QDRO because it does not need to meet the requirements for a QDRO due to the fact that the Plan is exempt from ERISA as a governmental plan. The court finds this to be so, finding that the Plan under SCERA meets the definition of a “governmental plan” for purposes of ERISA coverage and that such a plan is expressly exempt from ERISA.
Objections
Hernandez objects to certain statements in Respondent’s papers, including factual assertions in the declarations and legal argument. These objections are overruled.
Substantive Discussion
Subject to the court’s determinations above and the requirement that the court must first find that all successors in interest of Petitioner with respect to the Plan have had notice and opportunity to appear, the court finds Respondent’s motion to be persuasive.
The authority, as noted above, is clear that the court retains jurisdiction to consider the matter and to give proper enforcement to the Judgment and related documents. Petitioner’s death does not abate this jurisdiction. The DRO itself expressly states that the court retains such “jurisdiction to enforce, revise, modify or amend this Order….”
Respondent is also persuasive that the DRO must comply with the terms of the Judgment. The Judgment expressly states that the parties will prepare a DRO to address the interests in the Plan and the Judgment expressly states what the DRO terms will be. The Judgment gives no discretion or freedom to deviate from the terms of the Judgment. Accordingly, the DRO must set forth terms as stated in the Judgment. The Judgment also specifies expressly, clearly, and without any other possible interpretation, that Petitioner’s interest in the Plan payments was required to revert to Respondent alone upon his death and that Petitioner did not have the freedom to designate any beneficiary. The conflicting term in the DRO is apparently an error or preparing the DRO and it directly conflicts with the clear, controlling, and mandatory terms of the Judgment. All other issues or arguments on this point related to why or when Petitioner made any changes, are immaterial.
Subject to the above determinations and necessary finding regarding successors in interest, absent any change in the evidence compelling a different outcome, once the court reaches the substantive merits of this motion, the court will GRANT the motion.
Conclusion
At this time, the court REQUIRES APPEARANCES and directs the parties to present admissible evidence demonstrating all of the potential successors in interest of Petitioner with respect to the Plan. Until the court has made the necessary determinations in that regard, it is unable to reach the substantive merits of this motion.
**This is the end of the Tentative Rulings.***