Family Law Tentative Rulings - Courtroom 21

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: 876992

To appear via Zoom by phone:

• Call: +1 669-254-5252
• Enter the Meeting ID: 160-223-6856
• Passcode: 876992

1. SFL64945, Beltrami v. Kabasinskas

Motion To Be Relieved As Counsel by Attorney Conway GRANTED.
 

2. SFL084746, Hansell v. Hansell

Motion To Be Relieved As Counsel by Attorney Carroll GRANTED.
 

3. SFL093728, Kovacs v. Kovacs (Bruen)

Value of real property located at 17350 Vailetti Drive, Sonoma CA 95476 is $350,000.

            Trial was held on April 7, 2026 on all issues in the parties’ dissolution proceedings. The Court reserved jurisdiction to determine whether it was appropriate to assign real property located at 17350 Vailetti Drive, Sonoma CA 95476 (“Vailetti Drive”) to Petitioner at a fair market value of $2,200,000 or $350,000, the latter of which takes into account a promissory note on the property of $1,850,000. Respondent discharged her liability on the promissory note in a bankruptcy proceeding. The Court requested additional briefing regarding this issue.

            Petitioner did not provide further briefing. Respondent submitted a declaration indicating she does not have further information as to whether the promissory note exists and has not received any information regarding whether it has been paid in full or forgiven. Despite this lack of information, Respondent agrees to include the promissory note in determining the value of the real property. Therefore, it is ordered that the value of Vailetti Drive is $350,000, awarded to Petitioner and shall be reflected in the equalizing payment owed by Petitioner to Respondent.

            The Court requests Respondent to prepare and serve a proposed order consistent with this tentative ruling within five days of the date set for argument of this matter. Petitioner 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.

4. 25FL01284, Freeman v. Campbell

Notice of Motion and Declaration of Joinder and Request for Order CONTINUED to 9/3/26 at 9AM in Department 21.

5. 25FL01745, Anderson v. Anderson

            Motion to Set Aside Default GRANTED.  The court deems the proposed response to the petition to be filed as of the date of this order and directs Respondent to present a separate copy to be filed, effective as of the date of this order.

Facts

            Petitioner filed this Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on August 20, 2025, followed by a first amended petition on August 21, 2025.  She filed a proof of service for the amended petition, showing personal service on Respondent on August 27, 2025. By February 25, 2026, Respondent had not appeared and Petitioner obtained a default against him. 

Motion

            In his Request for Order (“RFO”) and Motion to Set Aside Default, Respondent moves the court to set aside the default pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) and allow him to file a response.  He contends that when Petitioner served him with the petition, he was experiencing severe emotional distress, depression, and stress which impaired his ability to focus on the legal matters and understand the response deadline.  He adds that he took measures to rectify the matter once he received notice of the default and he has provided a proposed response to the petition. 

            Petitioner opposes the motion.  She contends that for a variety of reasons, it took her over two years from the time she sought a separation and more than a year from the time she moved to a different home before she was able to file for divorce, and she gave Respondent sufficient notice.  She adds that she also has been suffering greatly from the stress of the breakdown of their marriage and has tried to be open and cooperative. 

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 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).

CCP section 473(b) allows parties to set aside dismissals or defaults, or the functional equivalent thereof, based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.  CCP § 473(b).  An order setting aside the default is discretionary where based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.  CCP § 473(b).

There is also a policy in favor of hearing cases on their merits and the motion to vacate should be granted if the moving party shows a credible, excusable explanation.  Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227.  The provision of this section authorizing court to relieve party from a judgment or order resulting from mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect is remedial in its nature and is to be liberally construed so as to dispose of cases on their merits.  Ramsey Trucking Co. v. Mitchell (1961) 188 Cal.App.2d Supp. 862.

“Excusable neglect” comes down to whether the moving party has shown a reasonable excuse for the default.  Davis v. Thayer (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 892, 905.  The moving party must show that the default would not have been avoided through ordinary care.  Elms v. Elms (1946) 72 Cal.App.2d 508, 513.  The test ultimately is thus one of reasonable diligence.  Jackson v. Bank of America (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 55, 58.  A showing that the defendant was unable to understand what he was served with is sufficient to justify relief.  Kesselman v. Kesselman (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 196, 207-208.  Another valid basis is if the defendant mislaid or misfiled the papers and as a result failed to obtain an attorney in time.  Bernards v. Grey (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 679, 683-686.  Simply forgetting about the lawsuit or being too “busy” is not adequate.  Andrews v. Jacoby (1919) 39 Cal.App. 382, 383-384.

Significant health problems or family tragedies may be sufficient to support a showing of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.  Shapiro v. Clark (2008) 164 Cal.App.4^th 1128 (death of a son is sufficient excuse); Kesselman v. Kesselman (1963) 212 Cal.App.2d 196, 207-208; Fink & Schindler Co. v. Gavros (1925) 72 Cal.App.688 (illness sufficient excuse where party had tried to hire attorney before falling ill).

Discussion

            Respondent has presented a sufficient and credible basis for the requested relief.  Petitioner asserts that she provided notice of the proceedings and attempted to be cooperative and communicative and the court finds this credible.  The court also recognizes that Petitioner, like Respondent, has understandably been faced with stress and uncertainty over these events.  However, in light of the applicable law as noted above, Respondent’s explanation for the failure to respond on time is sufficient.  It also appears to be credible and Petitioner does not dispute Respondent’s explanation.  Respondent also acted promptly upon learning of the default, filing this motion only slightly more than one month after the default. He has also presented a completed and facially reasonable Response to the Petition.  No other hearings or proceedings have yet been set in this matter and vacating the default appears unlikely to cause any material delay.  In light of the policy in support of allowing parties to assert their interests in court, the Court finds it appropriate to grant the motion and order the proposed Response to be filed as the Response to the Petition. 

Conclusion

            The Court GRANTS the motion.  The Court deems the proposed Response to the Petition to be filed as of the date of this order and directs Respondent to present a separate copy to be filed, effective as of the date of this order. 

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.