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)-521-6836 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 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

1. 24FL00193  CURLEY DISSOLUTION

Motion to Dismiss Entire Dissolution Action  CONTINUED to the law and motion calendar of September 4, 2026, in Department 20 at 9:30 a.m. because there is no proof of service showing notice of this hearing.  Prior to the new hearing, the moving party must file timely proof of service in accord with California Rule of Court 3.1300, demonstrating service of notice of the hearing.  Respondent must also address the issues of abatement and the court’s jurisdiction as detailed below.

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 is able to determine at this time, there has been no adjudication of the status of marriage.

            At this time, no hearings are pending.

Motion

            Respondent in her Request for Order (“RFO”) and Motion to Dismiss Entire Dissolution Action, Respondent moves the court to dismiss the action on the basis that Petitioner died on March 6, 2026.

            There is no opposition. 

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). 

Discussion

            As far as the court is able to determine at this time, there has been no adjudication of the status of marriage but the matter is not entirely clear and there have been some determinations in this matter.  Accordingly, it is possible that the death of Petitioner does not entirely deprive this court of jurisdiction.  Respondent fails to address this issue in the motion. 

There is also no proof of service showing service of the filed motion or notice of the hearing date.  The only proof of service is the one attached to the moving papers, showing service of the papers prior to filing and thus prior to obtaining a hearing date.  Although Respondent asserts, and provides evidence demonstrating, that Petitioner is now deceased, Petitioner is on record as currently a party appearing through his attorney, Wallace Francis.    Accordingly, the moving party has failed to file complete proof of service showing notice that the motion was filed or showing notice of the hearing. Proof of service for a motion must be filed at least 5 court days prior to the hearing.  California Rule of Court (“CRC”) 3.1300(c).

            Accordingly, the court must CONTINUE the motion.

Conclusion

            The court CONTINUES the motion to allow Respondent to file complete proof of service showing service on Petitioner’s attorney of record and any other party who may represent Petitioner’s estate or act as successors in interest.  Respondent must file the proof of service in a timely manner in accord with the Code of Civil Procedure and California Rules of Court.  Respondent must also provide evidence and legal analysis regarding the status of the marriage, issues determined so far, abatement of the action upon death, and the extent of the court’s remaining jurisdiction, if any. 

2. SFL 075198 LESCURE/BASIGNO-LESCURE DISSOLUTION

Respondent’s Request for Order filed 5/19/2026 is DENIED as Respondent failed to serve the Request for Order on the other parties in this case.

3. 25FL01980 MAIER V. GRAY

The court requires the parties to appear to address Respondent’s Request for Order filed 5/15/2026.

4. SFL090092 HULS DISSOLUTION

The court requires the parties to appear to address Respondent’s Request for Order filed 6/1/2026.