Family Law 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. 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:

• https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1616468743
• Passcode: 026215

To appear via Zoom by phone:

• Call: +1 669 254 5252
• Meeting ID: 161 646 8743
• Passcode: 026215

1. SFL39201, Pahlavan Legal Separation

Petitioner Pedroza motion to enforce the agreements entered into by the parties is partially GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. Respondent shall pay out a lump sum of $718,000.00 plus $245,510.00 in interest to Petitioner within 30 days of receiving service of the notice of entry of the Court’s order on this motion. The request is partially DENIED as to all other orders requested.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The parties separated in 2007 and Petitioner brought this action to dissolve her marriage with Respondent Pahlavan. The parties executed a written Marital Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) in 2009. The Court entered a Judgment of Dissolution on March 11, 2009.

According to the MSA, each party owned a 50% interest in Starlite Vineyards, LLC (“Starlite”) and Pahlavan Family Cellars, LLC (“PFC”). Later in 2016, the Court issued a Statement of Decision confirming Respondent’s sole authority to make decisions regarding management, operations, and assets of Starlite and PFC, which includes the right to sell assets. The Statement of Decision also stated that neither party could force a buy-out of the other party for Starlite or PFC.

The parties executed three written agreements after participating in mediation. In 2018, they signed an agreement in which Respondent agreed to buy out Petitioner’s membership interests in both Starlite and PFC on payment of $1,300,000.00 according to a payment plan. After paying out $50,000.00, Respondent executed a promissory note for the remaining $1,250,000.00. The parties established a Deed of Trust for this remaining amount in Petitioner’s name on the real property owned by Starlite located at 5511 Highway 128, Geyserville, CA 95441, to secure outstanding payments owed to Petitioner. The parties entered into a second agreement to memorialize the agreement between them regarding a painting. They entered into a third agreement in 2019 regarding the remaining $1,239,250.00 on the buyout of Petitioner’s interests in Starlite and PFC.

Respondent failed to make payments under the above agreements after the COVID-19 pandemic. The parties could not resolve the payment issues and Respondent proposed amendments to the existing agreements which Petitioner rejected. Petitioner alleges that Respondent used tactics such as writing memo notes on his checks to unilaterally attempt to change the terms of the agreements.

Petitioner now brings this request for order to obtain the amount still owing plus interest on the above agreements. Petitioner claims that Respondent has the ability to pay and has supplied evidence that demonstrate the value of his assets.

 DISCUSSION

Scope of Motion

Petitioner requests that the Court make the following orders:

1.         Enforce the agreements entered into by the parties regarding the buyout of Petitioner’s interest in Starlite and PFC and order Respondent to pay a lump sum of $718,000.00 for the amounts due plus $245,510.00 in aggregate interest calculated monthly at 1%.

2.         As necessary, other orders for sanctions or contempt that the Court deems equitable and appropriate and to enforce by execution of writ/levy issued against Respondent’s real properties and personal properties.

Respondent argues that the Court can only enforce its own judgment and orders that have already been entered, per Family Code section 290. Respondent argues that per Code of Civil Procedure 664, a judgment is only enforceable when it is entered so the Court cannot enforce an agreement made outside of the Court that was never previously brought before the Court.

Petitioner replies that the Courts can decide whether a mediated settlement agreement in writing and signed by the parties is valid and enter a judgment to enforce it per Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. As the parties executed the written MSA here and multiple mediated signed agreements thereafter to clarify the terms of the property interests defined in the MSA, Petitioner requests the Court to enter an order enforce these agreements.

Legal Standards

Contract Formation

Per California Civil Code section 1550, the essential elements of a contract are: (1) parties capable of contracting; (2) their consent; (3) a lawful object; and (4) a sufficient cause or consideration.

Motion to Enforce Settlement

When a party seeks to enforce a stipulated settlement entered in writing or orally before the court, the court “may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement.”  (C.C.P. § 664.6.)  The court’s discretionary ruling will be upheld if based on “substantial evidence.”  (Fiore v. Alvord (1985) 182 Cal.App.3d 561, 566.)   Furthermore, a court may retain jurisdiction even after dismissal to enforce a settlement if the parties so request either in a signed writing or orally before the court. (See generally, Hines v. Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174.)

Judgment can be entered to enforce a settlement if two prerequisites are met: (1) a contract was formed; and (2) there is a writing signed by the parties with the material terms of the settlement. (Weddington Productions, Inc. v. Flick (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 793, 797.) Where there is no “meeting of the minds” on the material terms of the contract, there can be no formation of the contract. (Ibid.)  If there is no formation, there exists no settlement agreement which the court may enforce. (Ibid.) C.C.P. section 664.6 only applies to agreements made in writing and signed by the parties (as well as their legal representative) or orally before the court. Additionally, signatures by the parties are generally required for enforcement pursuant to this statute, because “settlement so directly affects the party’s ‘substantial rights’ and is considered to be a serious step that requires the party’s knowledge and express consent.” (Levy v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 578, 584.)

Application

The Court finds that the parties formed valid written contracts when executing the MSA and the multiple mediated agreements thereafter to clarify ownership terms stated in the MSA over Starlite and PCF. The parties were both consenting adults with no impairment to their capacity and agreed to a legal exchange of property interest for the consideration of a lump sum of money. There was a meeting of the minds between the parties when entering into these agreements and Respondent has already partially performed on the agreements. The Court is persuaded that Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 applies here to the written agreements entered into by the parties and will partially grant the request for order only as to the amount still due per the executed written agreements for $718,000.00 plus $245,510.00 for interest at a rate of 1% per month as agreed to by the parties in writing in Amendment No. 1 to Family Agreement.

The request is partially denied as to the other orders requested for sanctions or contempt and for enforcement by execution of writ/levy issued against Respondent’s real properties and personal properties. The requests for contempt and sanctions are not properly before the Court and interest is already awarded against Respondent. Furthermore, there is no judgment as of yet on which to order enforcement by execution of writ/levy against Respondent’s property.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the motion is partially GRANTED pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 as to the enforcement of the written agreements entered into by the parties. Respondent shall pay out a lump sum of $718,000.00 plus $245,510.00 in interest to Petitioner within 30 days of receiving service of the notice of entry of the Court’s order on this motion. The request for order is partially DENIED as to all other orders. The prevailing party shall prepare and serve a proposed order consistent with this tentative ruling within five days of the date set for argument of this matter. Opposing party shall inform the preparing party of objections as to form, if any, or whether the form of order is approved, within five days of receipt of the proposed order. The preparing party shall submit the proposed order and any objections to the court in accordance with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

            It is SO ORDERED.

2. SFL080403, County of Sonoma v Stankas

Other Parent DeMartini’s request for order to compel further discovery responses is CONTINUED to August 2, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 20. Moving party failed to attach copies of the discovery propounded on Respondent Stankas or proofs of service that show the discovery was adequately served upon Respondent. Moving party shall supplement the request for order with these items for the Court’s consideration prior to the next hearing date.                 

            It is SO ORDERED.