Family Law Tentative Rulings - Courtroom 20

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)-521-6729 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: 026215

To appear via Zoom by phone:

• Call: +1 669-254-5252
• Enter the Meeting ID: 161-271-2563
• Passcode: 026215

FOR ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTS - PLEASE CALL THE COVERING JUDICIAL ASSISTANT AT (707) 521-6729. 
 

1. 24FL00193, Curley Dissolution

Motion to Dismiss Entire Dissolution Action DENIED.

Facts

            Petitioner filed this action for dissolution of marriage with no minor children on January 29, 2024.  Litigation has occurred regarding spousal support and attorneys’ fees.   As far as the court can determine at this time, there has been no adjudication of the status of marriage.  

            On September 23, 2025, the parties reached an agreement regarding property division (the “September Order”).  The court entered an order stating, “The parties have reached a complete agreement about division of their community property and debt as attached.”  Attached to it is a chart listing the division of the property by specific item and amount.

            Respondent filed a Request for Order (“RFO”) and Motion to Dismiss Entire Dissolution Action, moving the court to dismiss the action on the basis that Petitioner died on March 6, 2026.  The court issued a tentative ruling continuing the motion on the grounds that there was no proof of service and Respondent had not fully addressed whether the death fully abated the action in light of the determinations which had been made up to that point.  At the hearing on July 17, 2026, no party appeared so the court adopted the tentative ruling continuing the motion.

            The court again issued a tentative ruling continuing the motion from the September 4, 2026 hearing on the ground that there was still no proof of service or opposition.  The court was not aware that shortly prior to the hearing late opposition and late reply had been filed, but they were untimely and too late to consider for that hearing.

            Currently, no other hearings are pending.

Motion

            This matter is once again on calendar for Respondent’s RFO and Motion to Dismiss Entire Dissolution Action which this court continued from July 17, 2026 and September 4, 2026.   Respondent moves the court to dismiss the action on the basis that Petitioner died on March 6, 2026.  Respondent had filed no additional papers since the prior hearing and has not provided any proof of service at all.

            Petitioner’s attorney has filed a Notice of Death of Petitioner and Termination of Counsel’s Authority by Operation of Law.  He confirms that Petitioner died on March 6, 2026, and he adds that to his knowledge no successor in interest or personal representative has been appointed to substitute into this action.  He provides no other information other than to state that he holds no authority to act in this litigation at this time or to act in any way on behalf of Petitioner or his estate or possible successor in interest.  

            Mark Edward Curley (“Mark”), appointed special administrator of Petitioner’s estate, opposes this motion.  He is the brother of Petitioner and on August 28, 2026, was appointed special administrator of the estate, with powers limited to appearing in this action and opposing this motion, and defending the September Order.

            Respondent filed reply papers.  Aside from arguing that the opposition papers were late, a point which is now moot because the court continued the motion, she contends that Mark lacks standing to oppose the motion, and that the property division was not fully settled.

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).

Death of a Party to a Family Proceeding

            A party's death before entry of judgment dissolving marital or domestic partnership status terminates the marriage or domestic partnership by operation of law and deprives the court of jurisdiction to make further orders on issues not already decided or submitted for decision.  CCP section 669; In re Marriage of Lisi (1995) 39 Cal.App. 4th 1573, 1575.  The court in Marriage of Lisi explained, “As between the parties to a dissolution action, the death of one party before entry of an order dissolving the marriage abates the action. Following death of a party, the court is deprived of jurisdiction to make further orders concerning property rights, spousal support, costs or attorney fees.”

In such situations, the court may enter judgment or make further orders only on issues already decided or submitted for decision in accordance with CCP section, 669, which states, in full, “If a party dies after trial and submission of the case to a judge sitting without a jury for decision or after a verdict upon any issue of fact, and before judgment, the court may nevertheless render judgment thereon.” In re Marriage of Lisi, 1576; see also Frederick v. Sup.Ct.  (2014) 223 Cal.App. 4th 988, at 991-992. 

            A party’s death following entry of judgment also 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.     
Procedurally, one must substitute the deceased spouse's estate as a party to the action. CCP sections 377.31, 377.41; see In re Marriage of Lisi, at 1575, fn. 1. 

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). 

Judicial Notice

            Mark requests judicial notice of court orders.  These are judicially noticeable and the request is granted.

Mark’s Standing

            Respondent argues that Mark lacks standing to oppose the motion because his appointment is not effective until letters have issued, but this argument is unpersuasive and the issue is immaterial.  First, the court specifically and expressly authorized Mark to appear in this action to oppose this motion and assert any rights already determined in the September Order.  Second, regardless of his standing, the court must take into account the effect of the September Order.

Discussion

            Mark now has been appointed as successor in interest or estate representative, with letters pending but with limited power specifically to appear in this action, oppose this motion, and enforce the September Order.  The judicially noticeable court orders demonstrate this clearly.  He points out that the court has in fact entered an order regarding property division per agreement.  Although there has been no adjudication of the status of marriage, this order remains in effect, and the court retains power to effect that division.  

            Respondent argues that the court lacks jurisdiction in this matter and the property issues have not been fully determined, but these arguments also are not persuasive.  The court retains jurisdiction regarding matters which have already been decided.  Regardless of whether property issues have all been decided, the fact is that the court entered the September Order deciding those property determinations and issues as set forth in that order. 

            Accordingly, the court DENIES the motion.

Conclusion

The court DENIES the motion.  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.

2. SFL094089, Jones Dissolution

Appearances required.