Family Law Tentative Rulings - Courtroom 23

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

TENTATIVE RULINGS

LAW & MOTION CALENDAR

Friday, May 01, 2026  9:30 a.m.

Courtroom 23 – Hon. Shelly J. Averill

3055 Cleveland Avenue, Santa Rosa

TO JOIN “ZOOM” ONLINE:

Meeting ID: 160-825-4529

Passcode: 611386

https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1608254529

TO JOIN “ZOOM” BY PHONE:

By Phone (same meeting ID and password as listed above):

(669) 254-5252

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.

1. SFL080301 SOLOMON DISSOLUTION

            Marriage of Solomon-SFL080301: Motion to Set Aside August 24, 2022, Stipulation and Order is DENIED as untimely pursuant to Family Code section 3691.

            Petitioner filed this action for dissolution of marriage with minor child (the “Child”) on June 29, 2018, raising issues of custody, visitation, spousal support, and both separate and community property interests.  Petitioner on July 9, 2019 filed a completed stipulation for waiver of the final declaration of disclosure (“FDD”) and request to enter default based upon an agreement between the parties.  The court entered the default that day.   On September 5, 2019, Petitioner filed a declaration for uncontested dissolution based on a default with an agreement.  He requested entry of judgment pursuant to the parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) and the court entered judgment (the “Judgment”) with the MSA attached and incorporated into the Judgment.  The court reserved jurisdiction over all other issues.  On November 7, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation to correct scrivener’s error in the Judgment and enter an amended judgment.  That same day, the court entered the Amended Judgment and served Notice of Entry of Judgment on the parties.  The parties then filed a stipulation on January 7, 2020 to add and incorporate pages inadvertently left out of the Amended Judgment. 

            Litigation resumed in March 2022 with Petitioner’s Request for Order (“RFO”) to change child support in order to reduce it to zero based on changed circumstances.  The parties litigated over the issue until August 2022, when the parties entered into a stipulation regarding child support (the “2022 Stipulation”).  The court entered the 2022 Stipulation as an order and filed it on August 24, 2022.  This 2022 Stipulation, among other things, reduced Petitioner’s monthly child support obligation from $2,500 to $2,000.

            On August 29, 2024, Petitioner filed another RFO to modify and reduce child support to zero (the “2024 RFO”), based on the fact that he had retired due to medical reasons and was no longer earning income but instead was living off of his savings. 

            In her RFO and Motion to Set Aside August 24, 2022 Stipulation and Order,  Respondent moves the court to set aside the 2022 Stipulation on the basis that she obtained discovery regarding the 2024 RFO which showed that Petitioner had not properly disclosed his income, the receipt of $2,138,000 in severance pay (the “Payment”), and a yacht.  She contends that she would not have entered into the 2022 Stipulation had she known this information. 

            Petitioner opposes the motion.  He admits that he received the Payment in 2020 and that he did not disclose it at the time of the 2022 Stipulation, but contends that this was because he had received it as a one-time payment two years previously so it was not income, it was  payment to maintain confidentiality regarding his former employment, and Respondent was generally aware of his overall financial circumstances at the time of the 2022 Stipulation.  He also asserts that she waited many months after obtaining the discovery before bringing this motion, even though she could have brought it earlier.

            In her reply, Respondent argues that under Family Code sections 2100-2107, there is a continuing duty to disclose financial information for purposes of child support until there has been an enforceable, binding resolution, and Petitioner cannot shift his burden of disclosure to her by asserting that she should have known Petitioner was lying.  She contends that the motion is timely because she discovered the fraud in the deposition of October 2025 and because the court has the authority to relieve her from the 6-month deadline.  

                                                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).

            As explained in Marriage of Margulis (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1252, at 1270, the fiduciary obligations of disclosure and accounting continue to bind spouses after separation until a final distribution of assets.  Respondent relies on Fam.Code section 721 which states that spouses are subject to the general rules governing fiduciary relationships.  She also relies on Fam. Code section 2100, which governs the duty of disclosure, sets forth the applicable policies, and requires parties in actions for dissolution or legal separation to provide full disclosure of assets, liabilities, income, and expenses.

            Relief from support orders, due to default or otherwise, in family-law cases may be based on the grounds generally applicable to motions to vacate under CCP section 473, or, after that deadline, only in accordance with the grounds in Fam. Code sections 2121, 2122, and 3691.  In re Marriage of Zimmerman (2 Dist. 2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 900, at 910-911; see also CRC 5.2(d) (provisions applicable to civil actions generally apply to proceedings under the Family Code unless otherwise provided).  As the Marriage of Zimmerman court explained,

Aside from the six-month period specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) for moving to set aside an order, section 3691 is the exclusive set-aside remedy. An authority stated, “After the CCP § 473(b) six-month time limit has run, the trial court may ... relieve a party from a support order ... based only on the grounds and within the time limits set forth in Fam.C. § 3690 et seq….” [Citation.]

This means that the court may not set aside an order after the CCP section 473 deadline, or which falls within section 3691, based on the court’s inherent power to set aside orders based on extrinsic fraud.  In re Marriage of Zimmerman, supra.  However, because section 3691 allows a party to move to set aside an order based on “fraud,” a motion based on section 3691 may seek to set aside an order based on any kind of fraud, extrinsic or otherwise.  Ibid.

            Fam. Code section 3691 governs requests to set aside support orders, including both spousal and child support as set forth in the definition of  “support” in Fam.Code section 3650.  It states, in pertinent part and with emphasis added,  

The grounds and time limits for an action or motion to set aside a support order, or part thereof, are governed by this section and shall be one of the following:

(a) Actual fraud. Where the defrauded party was kept in ignorance or in some other manner, other than through the party's own lack of care or attention, was fraudulently prevented from fully participating in the proceeding. An action or motion based on fraud shall be brought within six months after the date on which the complaining party discovered or reasonably should have discovered the fraud.

(b) Perjury. An action or motion based on perjury shall be brought within six months after the date on which the complaining party discovered or reasonably should have discovered the perjury.

Accordingly, a motion based on fraud or perjury must be brought within six months after the party discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the fraud or perjury.  Fam. Code section 3691(a), (b).

            Respondent persuasively shows a basis for setting aside the 2022 Stipulation based on Petitioner’s failure to disclose income or assets.  It is not clear whether Petitioner is simply arguing that he made an innocent mistake or if in fact he asserts that he did not need to disclose this information.  If the latter, Petitioner is not persuasive.  That it may have been a one-time payment is not in of itself dispositive.  It is information which could have materially affected his ability to pay and Respondent’s understanding of the financial situation which led her to agree to the support reduction. 

            However, Petitioner also argues that Respondent’s motion is untimely pursuant to the standards for a motion to set aside under Fam. Code section 3690, et seq.  He asserts that Respondent waited about 11 months after discovering the information before filing this motion.  If that is the case, then, pursuant to section 3691, the motion is untimely, which would leave Respondent with no basis for obtaining the relief sought. 

            Respondent filed this motion on January 23, 2026, explaining that she did so based on information obtained during discovery for litigating Petitioner’s 2024 RFO, which he filed on August 29, 2024.  She points to a number of pieces of evidence which she claims support her motion.

            Respondent notes the December 2025 deposition of Petitioner in which Petitioner provided testimony about the Payment and his purchases and investments.  She attaches part of the transcript with this testimony.

            Additionally, Respondent submits her own declaration, the Declaration of Jacquie Solomon (“Respondent’s Dec.”) in support of this motion.  In this, she states that during this discovery regarding the 2024 RFO, Petitioner “admits in his February 2025 Interrogatory that he received $2,000,000 from his employer at the time of separation from the company.”  Respondent’s Dec., ¶3.  She attaches the interrogatory responses to her declaration as Ex D.  The responses show that they were executed and served on Respondent in February 2025.  The document shows that Respondent had already learned of the Payment and its amount and expressly asked Petitioner to identify the source of the Payment.  Petitioner informed Respondent at that time that he had received the Payment of $2,000,000 on August 21, 2020 and that it was a one-time payment to maintain confidentiality regarding his prior employment, which had recently ended. 

            Respondent in her declaration also claims that the parties in February 2021 both invested in a scheme with one David Stone (“Stone”) and that Petitioner received all of his principal and interest from the scheme but that Respondent did not.  Respondent’s Dec., ¶¶4-7.  This discussion includes a May 2025 article in the Marin Independent Journal, attached as Ex. H, which she claims reports all of this. 

            Finally, Respondent explains that when Petitioner filed his reply declaration in support of the 2024 RFO, on October 29, 2024, he admitted that had received a “substantial severance package of 13 months pay,” which is the Payment at issue.  Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Set Aside Stipulation and Order filed on August 24, 2022 (“Ps&As”), 6:3-6. She notes that he did not provide full details at that time, but this still indicates that she reasonably was aware of the facts supporting this motion at that time.

            Accordingly, even Respondent’s own evidence unequivocally shows that she was aware of the Payment and the undisclosed financial information by, at the latest, about a year before she filed this motion.  Respondent repeatedly refers to the December 2025 deposition of Petition as putting her on notice of the factual basis for this motion, but she ignores her own evidence which unequivocally shows that she already discovered the information by February 2025 at the latest. 

            In her moving papers, Respondent entirely fails to address the authority for this motion and ignores the requirements of section 3691, set forth above.  She relies only on Fam. Code sections 721 and 2100, also set forth above.  These latter provisions clearly set forth the requirements and duties of disclosure regarding finances and Respondent is basically correct in her interpretation of those obligations.  However, she does not address the basis for this motion and although section 3691 clearly authorizes possible relief on the grounds raised, it requires the motion to be brought “within six months after the date on which the complaining party discovered or reasonably should have discovered the” fraud or perjury.  Respondent’s own evidence unequivocally shows that she filed her motion at least 11 months after that date, and even provides sufficient basis to find that she in fact filed the motion more than a year after that date.  The motion is therefore untimely, on the face of Respondent’s own moving papers, by several months.  She has no other basis for relief.

            Respondent addresses Fam.Code section 3691 for the first time in her reply.  In this, she acknowledges the 6-month deadline but presents two arguments as to why the motion is timely.

            First, Respondent contends that the motion is timely because she discovered the underlying facts only in October 2025.  As noted above, this is when she obtained some information in Petitioner’s deposition.  However, as also explained above, her own moving papers are unequivocally clear in showing that she learned of the alleged fraud or perjury, the basis for this motion, at least 9 months before that deposition, and at the latest about 11 months before filing this motion.  She offers no explanation as to why the October 2025 deposition is the date which could trigger the 6-momth deadline and why her earlier discovery, which she herself makes absolutely clear, did not trigger that 6-month deadline. 

            Second, Respondent asserts that there is good cause for the court to exercise its discretion under Fam. Code section 3690 to relieve her from the 6-month deadline.  Petitioner relies on Fam.Code section 3690(a), which states, in full and with emphasis added,

The court may, on any terms that may be just, relieve a party from a support order, or any part or parts thereof, after the six-month time limit of Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure has run, based on the grounds, and within the time limits, provided in this article.

This merely explains that after the time limit of CCP section 473 has run a party may obtain relief based on the provisions of that article, the provisions being set forth in section 3691.  As explained above, with respect to support orders, section 3691 provides the sole basis for relief after the expiration of the deadline for CCP section 473, and section 3690 merely explains that.  As also explained above, section 3691 imposes its own 6-month deadline based on when the moving party discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the fraud or perjury.  That deadline is absolute and section 3690 merely allows a party to seek to set aside an order up to that deadline; it does not also allow relief from that deadline.  Even if this provision did provide a possible basis for relief from the deadline in section 3691, Respondent has offered no good cause.  She relies on the possible injustice that may result from Petitioner hiding assets or income, but that has no bearing on whether there is good cause for relief from a statutory deadline.  Here, Respondent’s own evidence makes it clear that she knew of the alleged fraud or perjury at least 11 months before filing this motion, and even more than a year before filing this motion.  She offers no explanation for the delay, and thus no good cause of relieving her from the results of that delay.  

            One final point which Petitioner makes is that Respondent failed to make the motion on the mandatory form FL-360 for motions to set aside support order pursuant to Fam. Code section 3690, et seq.  Petitioner is correct that the form FL-360 was “adopted for mandatory use” and must be used for a motion such as this. 

            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. 25FL01802 HAGEL DISSOLUTION

Marriage of Hagel-25FL01802: Motion to Compel Family Code 2100-2017 Financial Disclosures DROPPED.  The matter is now moot because the record and declaration from Petitioner show that Petitioner has now provided the required documents. 

            Petitioner filed this action for dissolution of domestic partnership with minor child (the “Child”) on February 2, 2026.  Petitioner seeks orders regarding custody and visitation of the Child, domestic partner support, child support, separate property and community property.

            Sonoma County Department of Child Support Services (“DCSS”) substituted in as payee for child support which Respondent allegedly owed to Petitioner. 

            On January 28, 2026, the court entered the default of Respondent on Petitioner’s request and Petitioner filed a form FL-141 declaration of service (“Service Declaration”) regarding service of her FL-140 Preliminary Declaration of Disclosure (“PDD”), showing that she had served the PDD on Respondent.  

            On February 2, Respondent also filed a form FL-141 Service Declaration regarding service of his FL-140 PDD, showing that he had served the PDD on Petitioner. 

            In his Request for Order (“RFO”) and Motion for Family Code 2100-2107 Financial Disclosures, Respondent moves the court to compel Petitioner to complete her PDD by serving all required supporting documents pursuant to Family Code sections 2100-2107.  He claims that although Petitioner served him with her PDD, she failed to provide the required supporting financial documents, “including bank statements, financial account statements, and documentation for assets and debts listed in the disclosures.”

            Petitioner, in her declaration filed on April 16, 2026, opposes the motion.  She states that when she initially served her PDD on Respondent, her failure to include the required documents was not intentional.  She contends that she has now served Respondent with a new PDD which includes the required documents. 

            According to the Family Law Rules of the California Rules of Court (“CRC”) 5.2(d), and Family 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 (“CRC”) and the Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”).  See, e.g., In re Marriage of Boblitt (2014) 223 Cal.App. 4th 1004, at 1022 (discovery).

            The governing law requires disclosure of income and expenses, as well as assets.  Fam.Code sections 2100-2107; Marriage of Feldman (2007) 153 Cal.App. 4th 1470, 1476-1477. 

Unless excused, parties in actions under the Family Code must provide preliminary and final declarations of disclosure meeting the requirements set forth in Fam. Code sections 2103, 2104, and 2105.  If a party fails to provide a disclosure or the required information, the other party may request compliance and, if the party still fails to comply, may then bring a motion to compel.  Fam. Code section 2107.

            Fam. Code section 2104 sets forth the requirements for serving a preliminary declaration of disclosure (“PDD”).  Subdivision (a) requires each party to serve the other with a preliminary declaration of disclosure, unless excused by court order for good cause, or when service is not required pursuant to Section 2110.  Fam. Code section 2014(b) states that each party must file with the court proof of service of the preliminary declaration of disclosure.  Fam. Code section 2104 requires the service to take place within the time period set forth in subdivision (f).  Subdivision (f) requires petitioner to serve the PDD either concurrently with the petition or within 60 days of filing the petition. Respondent must serve the PDD either with the response or within 60 days of filing the response.

            The PDD must include all tax returns filed by the declarant within the two years prior to the date that the party served the declaration along with sufficient information to show the identity of all assets in which the party may have an interest, all liabilities for which the party may be liable, and the party’s percentage of each asset and percentage of obligation for each liability.  Fam. Code section 2104.  As set forth on the PDD form FL-140, the PDD must include as attachments: a completed schedule of Assets and Debts form FL-142 or form FL-160 Property Declaration; completed Income and Expense Declaration (“IED”) on form FL-150; the required tax returns for the two prior years; statements of material facts regarding assets and debt obligations; and an accurate and complete written disclosure of investment, business, or other opportunity.

            Fam. Code section 2107 governs the failure to comply with the requirements for preliminary declarations of disclosure set forth in section 2104.  It states that where one party has complied and the other has not, the complying party may, within a reasonable time, ask the other to prepare the PDD.  It also states that, if the other party still fails to comply, the complying party may file a motion either 1) to compel compliance, or 2) for an order preventing the noncomplying party from presenting evidence on issues that should have been covered in the declaration of disclosure.  According to subdivision (c), in addition to other remedies where a party fails to comply with disclosure requirements, the court “shall… impose money sanctions against the noncomplying party. Sanctions shall be in an amount sufficient to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct, and shall include reasonable attorney’s fees, costs incurred, or both, unless the court finds that the noncomplying party acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust.”

            Respondent shows that Petitioner failed to provide the required documentation with the PDD. 

            However, Petitioner shows that she has now served a new PDD with the relevant documents.  On February 26, 2026, she filed a new Service Declaration showing that she served Respondent on February 9, 2026 with a new PDD and related documents; a proof of service showing service of the PDD, IED, and Property Declaration; and an IED.  On March 11, 2026, she also filed a form FL-160 Property Declaration with attached documentation on assets and debts.  Finally, she states in her declaration that she served the new PDD and other documents, along with various documents of assets and debts attached to the declaration, including bank statement and income tax record.  

            The court finds the motion now to be MOOT.  The motion is DROPPED on this basis. 

Conclusion

            The court DROPS the motion because Petitioner served new documents, showing apparent compliance with the disclosure requirements.  Petitioner 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.

3. SFL085313 DUFFORD V. ELLISON

 Dufford v. Ellison-SFL085313: Respondent’s motion to change venue to Shasta County is GRANTED.  On February 24, 2026, Respondent filed a Request for Order to Change Venue to Shasta County.  Respondent filed a supporting declaration on March 2, 2026, declaring under penalty of perjury that both parties and the children now reside in Shasta County.  Respondent provided the Shasta County addresses for both parties as well as the address for the children’s school in Shasta County.  Petitioner was personally served with the pending motion and did not file a responsive declaration or objection.  As both parties and the children reside in Shasta County this matter is hereby transferred to Shasta County pursuant to CCP §397.5.  Petitioner shall pay any fees associated with the transfer of the case from Sonoma County to Shasta County within 30 days of the date set for hearing in this matter.   

4. SFL 086809 NORDBY DISSOLUTION

            Marriage of Nordby-SFL086809: Appearances required.  A tentative ruling was previously posted in this matter on March 6, 2026, at which time counsel for Respondent requested oral argument.  The oral argument is set to be heard on May 1, 2026 at 9:30 in Department 23.

5. 25FL01272 THOMSON DISSOLUTION

 Marriage of Thomson-25FL01272: Appearances required.  On March 11, 2026, Petitioner filed a motion for Bifurcation of Marital Status.  Petitioner attaches to the motion an executed Marital Settlement Agreement addressing the division of all assets and debts and indicates that Respondent is uncooperative in having the Judgment entered.  Petitioner is requesting a bifurcation of the marital status.  The parties and counsel are ordered to appear. 

6. SFL 68023 COUNTY OF SONOMA V JOE A CRUZ, A MINOR

            County of Sonoma v. Cruz-SFL68023: The motion to be relieved filed by Minor’s Counsel in this matter is GRANTED.  Minor’s Counsel was appointed to represent the child on February 29, 2024.  The purpose of the appointment has been concluded and Minor’s Counsel, Andrew Conway, is hereby relieved from the representation of the minor child in this matter.  

7. F25L00526 COSTELLO DISSOLUTION

                        Marriage of Costello-25FL00526:  Respondent’s motion to compel Petitioner to complete and file a Declaration of Service of Declaration of Disclosure (Form FL-141) is GRANTED.  Respondent acknowledges receipt of Petitioner’s Preliminary Declaration of Disclosures on July 7, 2025, including a Schedule of Assets and Debts and Income and Expense Declaration.  Petitioner has failed to file the Declaration of Service of Declaration of Disclosure resulting in the parties being unable to schedule a Settlement Conference.  Petitioner is order to file the Form FL-141 within 15 days of the hearing date set in this matter.  In the event, the Petitioner fails to timely file the mandatory document, a Settlement Conference may be filed by the court given the acknowledgment of Respondent that all disclosure documents have been served.

**This is the end of the Tentative Rulings.***