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. SFL65683, Russell v. Russell

Motion CONTINUED to the law and motion calendar on November 5, 2026 at 9:00am in Department 21. SANCTIONS awarded of $5,000.

Facts

            The parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement (“MSA”), incorporated into a judgment (the “Judgment”) entered on July 2, 2014.  Among other things, the Judgment, through the MSA, states that Petitioner has the right to remain in the parties’ residential real property (the “Home”) until the youngest of the children graduates from high school, and that “[a]t that time the property will be put up for sale,” with the parties splitting the equity on the Home upon sale, along with some related terms regarding expenses, loan principal, and repairs.

            The youngest of the children turned 18 in October 2024 and graduated from high school in June 2025.  The parties listed the Home for sale at some point thereafter, but the sale was not successful.  The parties attempted to negotiate over the sale and the possibility of Petitioner buying out Respondent, but they could not reach an agreement. 

            Petitioner filed a motion for buyout of the family home and assumption of the mortgage loan (the “Assumption Motion”).  At the hearing on July 13, 2026, the Court granted the motion with respect to an order for Petitioner to assume the mortgage loan and ordered Respondent to cooperate and sign the papers necessary for the transaction (the “Assumption Order”).   On August 6, 2026, the Court continued this matter and directed both parties to comply with the Assumption Order and enter into good-faith negotiations with the goal of Petitioner buying out Respondent.  The Court directed both parties to file an update on the facts and events, without any further legal argument, no later than 9 court days prior to this hearing calendared for September 17, 2026.  Petitioner timely filed a supplemental declaration (“Declaration”). Respondent did not.

Discussion

            Petitioner’s Declaration provides that she had to restart the process of assuming the loan due to the timing of the Assumption Order and an acquisition of the mortgage company by a new company. Petitioner attempted to meet and confer with Respondent, explaining the delay in complying with the Assumption Order and providing a settlement proposal. Respondent failed to reply. Additionally, Respondent failed to respond when Petitioner sent the draft Findings and Order After Hearing from the proceedings on July 13, 2026.

            The Court previously admonished Respondent in court for failing to acknowledge his role in the delay of the matter and in the previous ruling where the Court noted “…it is disingenuous for Respondent to argue strict adherence to the Judgment terms while at the same time requesting relief in the form of rent, which is clearly not a term of the Judgment.” Respondent continues to cause delay in this matter and cause further attorney fees and waste of judicial resources by failing to respond to Petitioner. Further, Respondent violated the Court’s order to file a declaration 9 court days prior to this hearing.

            The parties continue to be subject to the Assumption Order and Respondent shall cooperate with that process. Respondent shall cooperate with being removed from the deed to the Home, if required for the assumption process. Despite being removed from the deed, Respondent retains all rights afforded to him by the parties’ Judgment. The Court reserves jurisdiction to determine Respondent’s share of the equity in the home. Finally, the Court finds it appropriate to sanction Respondent $5,000 pursuant to Family Code section 271, as his conduct has frustrated the policy of the law to promote settlement of litigation and reduce cost of litigation by encouraging cooperation between the parties and attorneys. The sanction is also based on Respondent’s failure to file a declaration ordered by the Court. The sanction shall be applied against Respondent’s equity in the Home.     

The Court CONTINUES the matter to allow the parties to comply with the Assumption Order and enter into good-faith negotiations with the goal of Petitioner buying out Respondent.  The Court directs both parties to file an update on the facts and events, without any further legal argument, no later than 9 court days prior to the next hearing.  

2. SFL091476, Byrne v. Osborne
 

Motion to Bifurcate Marital Status GRANTED.

                                                             Facts

      The parties’ dissolution of marriage proceedings commenced with the filing of the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage on July 11, 2022. Respondent filed a Request for Order (“RFO”) on June 29, 2026 requesting the bifurcation of marital status. There is no opposition.
                                                        Discussion

      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 CCP section 473 when a party seeks relief from orders in family proceedings).        

            Marital dissolution actions may be “bifurcated” for an early “status-only” judgment, reserving jurisdiction over all other issues.  Fam. Code section 2337.  Upon noticed motion, the court may sever, or bifurcate, the issue of marital status from other issues and grant an early and separate trial on the issue of dissolution of marriage status, i.e, a “status only” judgment, expressly reserving jurisdiction of all other pending issues for a later determination.  Fam.Code section 2337(a), (f); see Marriage of Wolfe (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 889, 894; Marriage of Bergman (1985) 168 Cal.App. 3d 742, 755.  According to Fam. Code section 2337(c), “The court may impose upon a party any of the …conditions on granting a severance of the issue of the dissolution of the status of the marriage,” which includes provisions regarding health and medical insurance, and retirement benefits, among other issues such that the party not requesting termination of status may preserve their claims to those issues.

            A party should request bifurcation on the FL-300 Request for Order form with attached FL-315 Request or Response to Request for Separate Trial form.  CRC 5.390(a).  The moving party must also serve a preliminary declaration of disclosure (“PDD”) with the motion unless the party has already done so.  Fam.Code section 2337(b).  According to CRC 5.390(a), “A party requesting a separate trial or responding to a request for a separate trial must complete Application or Response to Application for Separate Trial (form FL-315).”  Emphasis added. Respondent has complied with all the requirements associated with this request.

Conclusion

            The Court grants Respondent’s request to bifurcate the parties’ marital status. Respondent 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 5.125.

3. 25FL00184, Cowhig v. Burns

Motion to Vacate Status Judgment (CCP 473) STAYED pending appeal of the underlying order and in accord with this Court’s prior stay of the trial on property issues pending appeal.  The court therefore CONTINUES the motion to December 4, 2026 at 9am in Department 21. A ruling will not be provided at that time; the issue will be addressed at the status conference and set for further hearing at that time.

4. 25FL00681, Bigham v. Bigham

Motion to Compel Respondent’s Discovery Responses is MOOT as to compelling responses or production, although Petitioner may bring a motion to compel further responses and/or production.  The court AWARDS Petitioner sanctions of $1,453 against Respondent. 

Facts

            Petitioner filed his Petition for Dissolution of Marriage without minor children on April 2, 2025.            Respondent filed her Response on May 22, 2025.  On October 29, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation for mutual electronic service on their attorneys of record and Respondent subsequently filed a new consent to electronic service on April 7, 2026 after a change in her attorney. 

Discovery

            As set forth in Petitioner’s Request for Order (“RFO”) and Motion to Compel Respondent’s Discovery Responses filed on April 30, 2026, as well as the attached declaration of Nathan Siedman (the “Siedman Dec.”), Petitioner served Respondent with a Request for Production of Documents, Set One (“RFPs”) on January 30, 2026.  The deadline for responding was March 2, 2026, but Respondent failed to serve any responses by that date.  On that date, Respondent’s then-attorney instead sent an informal, unverified, e-mail stating only that Respondent had told her that she did not have the requested documents.  The attorney also stated that she had sent Respondent an attorney substitution form but Respondent had not yet signed it.  The attorney subsequently withdrew from the proceedings.  Petitioner then sent Respondent a meet and confer letter on March 17, 2026, requesting verified responses without objections by March 24, 2026, but Respondent failed to do so.  Instead, on April 1, 2026, Respondent sent an e-mail stating that she has hired a new attorney, who has since substituted in.    

Motion

            In his RFO and Motion to Compel Respondent’s Discovery Responses, Petitioner moves the court to compel Respondent to serve responses without objections to the RFPs, and to order Respondent to pay monetary sanctions.

            Respondent opposes the motion, arguing that it is now moot.  She acknowledges that she failed to respond by the deadline and that her prior attorney had served only an informal e-mail and “did not serve a code-compliant response” with the information.  However, she contends that since then she served substantive responses on August 11, 2026, stating that she was conducting a search to locate the documents and would produce any found.  She also asserts that she then served the located documents and a response stating that she had conducted a diligent search and that any documents not produced did not exist or could be located despite her search.  She also contends that Petitioner has improperly refused to drop the motion even though she also offered to pay the fees incurred in filing the motion and accordingly seeks monetary sanctions of her own.   

            Petitioner has filed a reply, arguing that although Respondent has now served responses, they are evasive and insufficient, so that a motion to compel is still necessary.  He also contends that he is entitled to the promised tax returns, which Respondent has still not provided and which she claims that she is attempting to complete.

Applicable Authority

            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).

Where a party seeks to compel responses to requests for production under CCP section 2031.300, the moving party need only demonstrate that the discovery was served, the time has expired, and the responding party failed to provide a timely response.  See Leach v. Sup.Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 902, 905-906. Failure to provide a timely response waives objections, “including one based on privilege or on the protection for work product….”    CCP section 2031.300.  There is no meet and confer requirement or a deadline for a motion to compel response where none has been made. CCP 2031.300.  Where a party has failed to respond on time to a request for production, the first step is not to compel production but, as with interrogatories, to compel a response.  CCP section 2031.300.

            The responding party must verify substantive responses.  CCP section 2031.250.    Where a response is unverified, the response is ineffective and is the equivalent of no response at all.  See Appleton v Sup.Ct.  (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 632, 636.  However, a party need not verify responses consisting solely of objections, which only the attorney must sign.  CCP section 2031.250; Blue Ridge Ins. Co. v. Sup.Ct. (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 339, 344. 

Discussion

            Preliminarily, the motion is persuasive with respect to the actual requested relief that Petitioner was entitled to responses without objection.  Respondent herself admits in her opposition that she had failed to provide any timely responses.

            Respondent, however, demonstrates that the motion is now moot with respect to its core substance.  After the failure to respond, her current attorney substituted into the action.  Her evidence shows that several months after Petitioner filed this motion, she served proper, substantive responses on August 11, 2026.  In these, she stated that she was conducting a search to locate the documents and agreed to produce any found.  She then served the located documents and a new response stating that she had conducted a diligent search and that any documents not produced did not exist or could be located despite her search.  The motion is therefore moot as to compelling responses.

            Petitioner in reply contends that the responses are evasive and incomplete while Respondent has still not provided all promised documents.  This may possibly be the case, but should Petitioner seek to compel further responses or production of promised documents, he must file a motion to compel further responses and/or production.  Such a motion must comply with the requirements for such a motion, including a mandatory separate statement for compelling further responses.  This motion as noticed and briefed, is solely for compelling responses on the basis that Respondent had not provided any.  It does not put before the court a request to compel further responses or production.  This also means that Respondent has not had notice of or opportunity to oppose such a motion while the briefing and lack of separate statement make it impossible for the court to consider whether to order further responses or production. 

            The court finds the motion to be moot as to compelling responses.  

Sanctions

            For compelling further responses, the court shall impose monetary sanctions on the losing party unless that party acted with substantial justification, or other circumstances make sanctions unjust.  CCP sections 2023.010, 2023.030, 2030.300, 2031.310.  In order to obtain sanctions, the moving party must state in the notice of motion that the party is seeking sanctions, identify against whom the party seeks the sanctions, and specify the kind of sanctions.  CCP section 2023.040.  Sanctions are limited to the “reasonable expenses” related to the motion.  Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle of Los Angeles (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 256, 262.

In discovery, the court may impose monetary sanctions against the party, person, or attorney.  CCP section 2023.030(a).  It is appropriate to award sanctions against a party’s attorney if the court finds that the attorney decided to engage in, or recommend, the behavior at issue.  CCP section 2023.030(a); Ghanooni v. Super Shuttle (1993) 20 Cal.App.4^th 256, 261.  If sanctions are sought against an attorney, the burden shifts to the attorney to demonstrate that they did not recommend that conduct. Corns v. Miller (1986) 181 Cal.App.3^rd 195, 200-201.

            Fam. Code section 271 broadly authorizes the court to make an award of attorney’s fees and costs “in the nature of a sanction,” and “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of this code,” based on “the extent to which the conduct of each party or attorney furthers or frustrates the policy of the law to promote settlement of litigation and, where possible, to reduce the cost of litigation by encouraging cooperation between the parties and attorneys.”  The party requesting an award of attorney’s fees and costs on this basis is not required to demonstrate any financial need for the award.

            Although the service of responses rendered the motion moot as to compelling responses, that does not render the sanctions request moot.  Based on the motion, Petitioner is entitled to monetary sanctions for reasonable expenses incurred in attempting to obtain responses and filing this motion.  Respondent herself admits that she failed to serve responses by the deadline and that her responses were untimely.  She also admits that she did not provide responses until August, several months after Petitioner filed this motion in May.  Respondent also indicates that she had offered to pay for the expenses incurred in bringing this motion.

            The matter becomes less clear with the information presented in the opposition showing that Petitioner, despite having received responses and an offer to pay the incurred expenses, insisted on proceeding with the motion.  Respondent is persuasive that her position has been reasonable since serving the responses and that the only basis for proceeding with the motion now would be for the sanctions.  This would itself no longer be necessary had the parties agreed to a payment from Respondent.

            Petitioner is entitled to sanctions for the actual, reasonable expenses in bringing this motion in the amount of $1,453. 

Conclusion

            The motion is moot as to compelling responses or production, although Petitioner may bring a motion to compel further responses and/or production.  The court awards Petitioner sanctions of $1,453 against Respondent.  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 5.125.