Family Law Tentative Rulings
DEPT. 21 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 Judicial Assistant by telephone at (707) 521-6836 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 JOIN “ZOOM” ONLINE,
D21 – Family Law – Law & Motion Calendar
- MeetingID: 160 223 6856
- Password: 876992
- https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1602236856
TO JOIN “ZOOM” BY PHONE,
- Call 1 669 254 5252 (same meeting ID and password as listed above)
Tentative Rulings
Friday, March 15, at 9:30 a.m.
1. SFL73255
Respondent’s Motion to Enforce Judgment/MSA Re: Retirement Account Division and appointment of the Sonoma County Clerk of the Court to act as an Elisor to sign on behalf of Petitioner, Mary Krauthamer the J.P. Morgan Chase Bank “Letter of Instruction” is GRANTED. Respondent to follow procedure as outlined in Sonoma County Superior Court Rule 17.19, Appointment of Elisor.
2. SFL081531 Kahill Dissolution
Petitioner, Renee Kahill, (Mother) moves to change venue to Lake County, for custody purposed only. Respondent, Charles Kahill, (Father) opposes the motion.
Mother asserts she and their 10-year-old daughter have resided in Lake County since 2021. Father asserts the dissolution was filed in Sonoma County and he lives in Sonoma County. On January 18, 2020, Judgment was entered in Sonoma County. The only issue remaining is the temporary custody of their minor child. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §397.5 the court finds the ends of justice and the convenience of the parties would be promoted by the change to Lake County. Mother’s motion is GRANTED.
Mother to file a Request to Waive Court Fees and Proposed Order on court Fee Waiver with the Sonoma County Superior Court Clerk’s Office to determine whether she still qualifies for a fee waiver. If she does not qualify, she will have to pay the necessary fees for transfer.
3. SFL090902 Haile Dissolution
APPEARANCES REQUIRED to address Respondent’s claim of exemption. The court finds that the evidence and facts presented in the applicable papers are not sufficient for it to make a determination on the claim of exemption or the value, and the amount of Respondent’s equity in real property, if any. At this point, the court anticipates continuing this matter to allow for an evidentiary hearing at which the parties may present evidence. The parties may choose to provide live testimony at the future hearing, and the court must discuss with the parties the nature of the future hearing and the evidence to be provided, in addition to scheduling the hearing.
Facts
Petitioner filed this action for dissolution of marriage on April 21, 2022. Respondent had filed a related action for domestic violence and temporary restraining order against Petitioner on April 8, 2022, and the two actions were consolidated under this matter. Respondent’s representation has changed several times. He is currently self-represented.
Respondent appealed different court orders, apparently including orders on discovery motions and an award of attorney’s fees in favor of Petitioner. Some appeals were dismissed but ultimately the court of appeal heard the appeal from several orders and rejected Respondent’s arguments, affirming the court’s orders in a decision of October 2023, with a remittitur filed in this case on December 29, 2023. The court awarded costs to Petitioner, noting that this was “if any, as she did not file a respondent’s brief.”
Petitioner obtained a writ of execution for enforcement of money judgment, in the amount of $8,987.50 and filed the writ on January 22, 2024. It states that it is in regard to judgments entered on “8/4/22,” “12/6/22,” and “3/30/23.”
Respondent asserted a claim of exemption regarding Petitioner’s efforts to collect money owed, including her writ of execution. Petitioner filed an opposition to the Exemption and motion for hearing on it. The claim of exemption was filed with the court on February 9, 2024. At the initial hearing on the claim of exemption, on February 16, 2024, this court continued the matter to March 15, 2024 for further briefing.
Motion
Petitioner has filed an opposition to Respondent’s claim of exemption and a notice of motion for an order determining the claim. She opposes the claim of exemption on the basis that Respondent’s equity is greater than the amount provided in the exemption. In accord with this court’s order continuing the matter for further briefing, following the prior hearing Petitioner filed an additional brief on the issues. This specifically addresses the fact that the claim of exemption relates to her efforts to use the methods for enforcement of money judgments in order to enforce orders awarding her monetary sanctions in discovery matters.
Respondent has filed a response to the opposition and notice of motion. This consists of two declarations with attached exhibits, plus a memorandum of points and authorities attached to the original declaration. In accord with this court’s order continuing the matter for further briefing, following the prior hearing Respondent also filed an additional brief on the issues. This specifically addresses the fact that the claim of exemption relates to Petitioner’s efforts to use the methods for enforcement of money judgments in order to enforce orders awarding her monetary sanctions in discovery matters.
Procedure
A judgment debtor may claim an exemption for property within the time and in the manner set forth for the applicable enforcement procedure. CCP section 703.030(a); see Coastline JX Holdings LLC v. Bennett (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 985, 1004-1005.
CCP § 703.520 governs the requirements for asserting a claim of exemption. It states that the claimant may assert the claim by filing the claim and a copy of the clam with the levying officer within 15 days after notice of the levy on property if the notice was personally served, or 20 after mailing if the notice of levy was mailed.
The judgment creditor may then oppose the claim of exemption by following the procedures set forth in CCP § 703.550. The creditor must file with the court a Notice of Opposition to the Claim of Exemption on Judicial Council Form EJ-170, Notice of Motion for an Order Determining the Claim of Exemption, and Notice of Hearing on Claim of Exemption on Judicial Council Form EJ-175. CCP § 703.550(a). The form for the notice of opposition is mandatory and must be executed under penalty of perjury. The creditor must also file with the levying officer copies of each of these documents. Ibid. The creditor must file the required documents within 15 days after service of the notice of claim of exemption or within 20 days if the levying officer served the notice by mail. Ibid.
CCP § 703.580 governs the pleadings, burden of proof, evidence, and order on a motion to determine claim of exemption, as well as the release or satisfaction. For the hearing, the claim of exemption and notice of opposition constitute the pleadings subject to the court’s power to permit amendments in the interest of justice. CCP § 703.580(a). The exemption claimant bears the burden of proof. CCP § 703.580(b). The opposition is deemed to controvert the claim and the court must receive both into evidence. CCP § 703.580(c). The court may receive other evidence but if the parties provide no other evidence, the court may make its ruling based on the claim, financial statement, and opposition if the court is satisfied that they set forth sufficient facts. CCP § 703.580(c). If the court is not satisfied that these field documents contain sufficient facts for it to make a determination, the court “shall” order the hearing to be continued to allow for “the production of other evidence, oral or documentary.”
The “Judgments” at Issue
As noted above, Petitioner obtained a writ of execution for enforcement of money judgment, in the amount of $8,987.50 and filed the writ on January 22, 2024. The writ of execution states that it is in regard to judgments entered on “8/4/22,” “12/6/22,” and “3/30/23.”
At the prior hearing, this court noted that it was not clear what judgment Petitioner was attempting to enforce. The parties’ original papers did not clearly identify what judgment was at issue and the record of this case contains no final judgment. The court noted that the record in this action, specifically, also contains no judgment, or any other order or determination entered on August 4, 2022. However, the three money awards at issue and the basis for the amount which Petitioner seeks are now clear.
This court noted in the prior hearing that there are two awards of monetary sanctions on the two later dates noted in the writ of execution. On December 6, 2022, the court entered an order partly granting Petitioner’s motion to compel further discovery responses and awarding to Petitioner, against Respondent, monetary sanctions of $1,060. On March 30, 2023, this court entered two orders. It entered an order denying Respondent’s request for litigation fees and costs as well as for an award of sanctions. The court also entered an order denying Respondent’s motion to quash subpoenas and awarding sanction of $2,887.50 to Petitioner and against Respondent. It required payment to be made by May 1, 2023.
Petitioner, in her supplemental brief, now explains that the other money award which she seeks to enforce, dated August 4, 2022, is an order in related case SFL090745, which was subsequently consolidated into this case. The August 4, 2022 order at issue was a decision on a domestic violence restraining order and the court awarded Petitioner Eden Haile, respondent in that action, attorney’s fees of $5,000. That order is found in the court record for SFL090745.
Petitioner may enforce these orders awarding her monetary sanctions in the manner allowed for enforcing money judgments, including vi writ of execution. Any judgment or other court order or decree requiring payment of money is treated as a “money judgment.” CCP §§ 680.230, 680.270. CCP §680.230 defines a “judgment” for purposes of enforcement of judgments. It states, in full, ‘“Judgment” means a judgment, order, or decree entered in a court of this state.’ CCP §680.270 defines “money judgment” and states, in full, ‘“Money judgment” means that part of a judgment that requires the payment of money.’ Accordingly, as the court explained in Newland v. Superior Court (App. 2 Dist. 1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 608, at 615, “monetary sanction orders are enforceable through the execution of judgment laws [Citation.] These orders have the force and effect of a money judgment, and are immediately enforceable through execution, except to the extent the trial court may order a stay of the sanction.” The court in Newland expressly stated, although it did not hold, that this applies to sanctions imposed under the Civil Discovery Act. The court in Alioto Fish Co. v. Alioto (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1669, at 1686-1687, rejected an argument that a party could not enforce an order awarding attorney’s fees as a “judgment.” The court explained that the party opposing such enforcement argued that
the court had no “jurisdiction” under the Enforcement of Judgments Act (Code Civ. Proc., § 680.010 et seq.) to appoint a receiver or otherwise compel compliance with the receiver order, because the underlying… Fee Order is merely an order and therefore not an enforceable “judgment.” They also contend that, even if an order can be enforced as a judgment, the order was never entered in the “judgment book” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 668.
Section 680.230 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically defines “judgment” to include an “order ... entered in a court of this state.” Therefore the… Fee Order is a “judgment” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 680.230.
The court in Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. v. Lee (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 125, at 143-144, further explained,
While California's Enforcement of Judgments Law (EJL) provides that the word “judgment” means “a judgment, order or decree entered in a court of this state” (§ 680.230), litigants do not have license to substitute the word “order” everywhere the word “judgment” appears in the EJL, regardless of the circumstances or statutory intent. The ostensible purpose of the broad definition of “judgment” in section 680.230 is to permit an order awarding fees to be enforced under the EJL where there is no judgment.
Respondent in his additional briefing, the Declaration filed on February 22, 2024, argues that interim orders are not final determinations of the parties’ rights and that a judgment cannot be enforced until it is entered. To that extent, he is correct. However, these points do not address the specific issue here: whether orders, which have been entered as final orders on the matters they address, and which include an award of monetary sanctions or attorney’s fees and costs, are enforceable as money “judgments.” As explained above, the answer is that they are enforceable as money judgments.
The Claim of Exemption and Evidence
As noted above, the Claim of Exemption was filed on February 9, 2024, shortly before the original hearing on this matter. He refers to his social security disability income (“SSDI”) which he wants to be exempt and claims that he has “been on SSDI since 2010.” He includes a statement of his monthly SSDI benefit amount and a form financial statement, signed under penalty of perjury, on which he lists his assets, monthly expenses, and income and shows that the expenses exceed the income. For “Real estate equity,” he lists “0” assets.
Petitioner makes assertions in her original opposition to the claim of exemption and in her supplemental papers about Respondent’s assets, but provides no actual evidence and the information is, even on its face, unclear. Petitioner asserts that Respondent has equity in real property, his home, and additional funds in money accounts. However, despite her statements and the exhibits she attaches, it is not clear that any of this is admissible evidence. The form opposition is signed under penalty of perjury, but the attached statement with the purported financial information is not, and it is unclear of the signature under penalty of perjury also encompasses the attached statement. Moreover, the statement is by Petitioner’s attorney only, and it is unclear if she has personal knowledge of this information. Finally, on its face, the information does not clearly demonstrate what actual assets Respondent has now. An attached statement from a Redwood Credit Union account for Respondent, Petitioner’s Ex.B, shows a balance of $46,309.68, but that statement is dated April 17, 2023.
The evidence is unclear and disjointed. Neither side provides a clear, comprehensive assessment of Respondent’s current assets, income, or expenses. The court requires additional evidence before making a determination. Accordingly, the court REQUIRES APPEARANCES to address this issue and the anticipated scheduling of an additional hearing to receive additional evidence. The parties may choose to provide live testimony at the future hearing, and the court must discuss with the parties the nature of the future hearing and the evidence to be provided, in addition to scheduling the hearing.
4. SFL092157 Jensen Dissolution
Parties are to appear. Zoom okay.
END OF TENTATIVE RULINGS