Skip to main content.

Family Law Tentative Rulings

Family Law Tentative Ruling Announcements

The family court issues tentative ruling announcements on the court day prior to the scheduled hearing for specific types of motions. Tentative rulings are only provided on the Internet and posted in the clerk’s office lobby. Internet postings occur at 3:30 p.m. daily.

Parties are not required to give notice of intent to appear to preserve the right to a hearing. The tentative ruling will not become final until the hearing. (Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1) However, as a courtesy to the Court, and other parties or counsel with matters on calendar, notice of intended appearance or non-appearance is encouraged and may be sent by e-mail to the following address: familylaw.tentatives@stanct.org between the hours of 1:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. If you do not receive a confirmation e-mail from the clerk, you may call to speak directly with a Calendar Clerk at 209-530-3107.

Any party filing pleadings or documents on a tentative ruling matter within five (5) days of the hearing should provide a courtesy copy to the Courtroom Clerk and the Court’s Family Law Research Attorney by placing a copy in the drop box slot on the door of Room 223, Second Floor of the main Courthouse. Failure to do so may prevent the Court from consideration of such, may result in a continuance, and/or may be considered in the award of conduct-based fees and costs. (Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1(B).)

All parties and counsel are required to meet and confer in a good faith effort to resolve the dispute on any request, motion or hearing, with the exception of those involving domestic violence, and to exchange any documents upon which reliance will be made at the hearing. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98; Stan. Cnty. Local Rules, rule 7.05.1(C).) Failure to do so may result in a continuance and may be considered in the award of conduct-based fees and costs, or both. If sufficient information regarding an adequate pre-hearing meet and confer effort is not provided in the moving and opposing papers, in the Court’s discretion, the matter may be placed at the end of the calendar and not called until the parties or counsel advise the Court that they have complied with their obligations and/or resolved the matters own motion, the Court orders Respondent to comply within thirty (30) days of this ruling and admonishes Respondent that the failure to do so may result in the striking of the Response and entry of Respondent’s default.

Date: April 10, 2025

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Alan Cassidy in Department #11:

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13:

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sweena Pannu in Department #14:

FL-21-002631 – KLOSE VS BELTRAN 

Respondent’s Request for Order re Child Custody, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

This is a continued hearing on Respondent’s RFO.  The child custody and visitation request was mediated on October 23, 2024, and is not at issue for this hearing.

The child support and DV requests are not eligible for tentative ruling and require a hearing.

This leaves the request for a sale order of the parties’ marital residence.  The Court issued a tentative ruling denying the request without prejudice and this tentative was confirmed at the hearing.  (Findings and Order After Hearing, 1/8/25, p. 2.)  However, counsel were directed to meet and confer as to a voluntary stipulation and order for sale of the subject residence.  Accordingly, counsel shall appear and advise the Court as to the result of their efforts.

FL-23-001167 – AVEY VS HABSCHIED

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Elisor, etc.—MOOT, in part; GRANTED, conditionally, in part, and unopposed.

The Court finds that Petitioner’s Proof of Service demonstrates presumptively valid and timely individual service on Respondent such that the requirements for post-judgment service pursuant to Family Code section 215 are satisfied.  Respondent filed no Responsive Declaration or other opposition.

Turning to the merits, the request for an elisor as to Respondent’s signature on the QDRO is moot due to the Stipulation and Order filed on March 6, 2025.

The request for an elisor as to the listing, sale and equal division of sale proceeds for the property located at 16 Sundance Drive, Chiloquin, in the state of Oregon (Oregon Property), is granted and unopposed on the basis of Petitioner’s declaration regarding Respondent’s refusal to cooperate in such pursuant to the uncontested judgment entered on February 7, 2024.  (Judgment, “Attachment to Default Judgment,” p. 3, ln. 14-17, and Exh. B.)

However, the elisor request as to the Oregon Property is granted on the condition that Petitioner comply with the Local Rules regarding elisor requests, which provides in pertinent part:

The moving party must also submit a proposed order, which designates "The Clerk of the Court or Clerk’s Designee" as the elisor. The proposed order must not set forth a specific court employee by name. ¶  The proposed order shall indicate for whom the elisor is being appointed and in what capacity the elisor is to sign the document. The proposed order must expressly identify the document(s) the elisor must sign and a copy of the document(s) must be attached to the proposed order. The original document(s), when presented for signature by the elisor, must match the copy of the document(s) attached to the order. If the elisor’s signature must be notarized, the moving party must arrange

for a notary public to be present when the elisor signs the document(s).  (Local Rules, rule 7.08(A), Appointment of Elisors, emphasis added.)

Petitioner shall submit the proposed order for the Court’s review and signature  within fifteen (15) days of this ruling or the elisor request will be denied without prejudice by minute order and without further hearing.

FL-22-002629 - MONTES VS MONTES

Petitioner’s Request for Order re “Reinstate Benefits,” etc.—DENIED, without prejudice.

There is no proof of service on file.  The Court granted temporary orders and an order shortening time; personal service of Respondent was required.

Petitioner must appear and demonstrate good cause for a continuance of the hearing to effectuate service or the matter will be dropped for non-service and the temporary orders will be vacated.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge David I. Hood in Department #25:

436280 – CARLOS VS CARLOS

Petitioner’s Request for Order re Termination of Spousal Support—GRANTED.

Spousal support is not normally eligible for tentative ruling but, in this case, Petitioner has submitted a death certificate demonstrating that Respondent has passed away.  The Court may take judicial notice of this certified public record from the Health Services Agency of Stanislaus County, Public Health Division, and does so, which establishes that Respondent passed on December 31, 2024.  (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 453.)  As a matter of law, the permanent spousal support award in Respondent’s favor terminates automatically upon Respondent’s death unless the parties agree otherwise in writing.  (Fam. Code, § 4337.)  Accordingly, Petitioner’s request that the spousal support award be terminated is granted and the Court further orders that any earning assignment or withholding order based thereon is also vacated and terminated.

Moreover, Respondent’s passing also terminates the parties’ marital status by operation of law.  (Fam. Code, §§ 2337(g), 2344(a).)  And because final judgment was never entered in this case despite it having been initially filed in 2009, well over a decade ago, Respondent’s passing abates the dissolution case and deprives the Court of jurisdiction to consider any unresolved or unadjudicated issues.  (Marriage of Lisi (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1573, 1575; Marriage of Allen (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1225, 1229; Marriage of Shayman (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 648, 651; Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. (TRG 2025) Ch.15-C, § 15:290 [“Either party's death before entry of judgment dissolving marital or domestic partnership status terminates the marriage or domestic partnership by operation of law. Since there is no longer any “res” for the court to act upon, the pending dissolution proceeding is abated and the family law court is deprived of jurisdiction to decide the remaining issues”].)

Consequently, once the orders made in this ruling have been entered, filed and served, the Court directs sua sponte that this action be dismissed with prejudice in the interests of justice and for want of subject matter jurisdiction and the absence of a real-party-in-interest as and for Respondent.

FL-24-003192 – BRAVO VS BRAVO

Respondent’s Request for Order re Spousal Support, etc.—HEARING REQUIRED, in part; DENIED, without prejudice, in part.

The spousal support request is not eligible for tentative ruling and requires a hearing.

The request for need-based attorney’s fees and costs also requires a hearing.

The request to assign a loan that Petitioner allegedly obtained in her name but without her consent is disputed by Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration and likewise will require a hearing to make factual findings and assess the parties’ respective credibility and the weight of the evidence.  That said, the Court does not normally characterize, value or divide individual assets or debts before trial unless there is a good cause to bifurcate the assets and/or debts and hold an early and separate trial as to them.  Doing so normally requires a separate request using mandatory attachments to the RFO form.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.390.)

Lastly, the request for temporary exclusive possession of the marital residence is denied without prejudice.  Respondent’s declaration does not forth any facts, nor attach any evidence, to support the allegations of domestic violence and abuse by Petitioner and there is no showing made that Respondent’s financial circumstances mandate exclusive possession of the marital residence, or that those of Petitioner are sufficient to impose a unilateral obligation to bear all encumbrances and utilities on the property while simultaneously obtaining and paying for alternative living arrangements.  That said, the parties may be heard on this matter.

Note that both parties are required to exchange any and all documentary evidence before the hearing that either of them wishes to offer in evidence.  (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98(b).)

FL-23-003014 – PULIDO VS PULIDO

Petitioner’s Request for Order re “Management,” etc.—HEARING REQUIRED.

Pursuant to the Findings and Order After Hearing (FOAH) of February 27, 2025, when this matter first came up for hearing, the Court ordered counsel to meet and confer as to the selection of a property management company to manage the rentals, collect and distribute rental income therefrom, etc., and Petitioner’s counsel was directed to propose a candidate and provide details regarding the scope and cost of management services to Respondent’s counsel.  In the interim, the temporary orders granted by the Court were continued to the next hearing, which took place on March 26, 2025.  Pursuant to the FOAH from that hearing, the selection of the property management firm had not occurred and the matter was again continued to the present hearing.  Accordingly, counsel shall appear and advise the Court as to status.  Failing agreement, the Court is likely to set the matter for briefing and long-cause hearing and may entertain the appointment of a receiver to ensure the status quo is maintained pendente lite.