Bifurcation of status of marriage; Preservation of community assets and allocation of debt
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 FLOR MARQUEZ,) Case Number: FDI-25-802240) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: June 4, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 CRYSTAL V. MARQUEZ,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: BIFURCATION OF STATUS OF MARRIAGE; REQUEST FOR 13 ORDER RE: PRESERV. COMM. ASS. AND ALLOCATION OF DEBT 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 The parties are ordered to appear. The parties may appear in person in Dept. 403 or remotely by 16 Zoom video. If a party chooses to appear by video, that party must abide by the Notice and 17 Instructions for Remote Appearances in San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 18
19 I. Respondent’s Request for Bifurcation and Termination of Marital Status Filed 2/10/26 20 A. Procedural History 21 1) The parties are Petitioner Flor Marquez and Respondent Crystal Marquez. 22 2) On 11/24/25, Petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution indicating the date of marriage is 5/27/22 23 and date of separation is 11/5/25 for a marriage of 3 years and 6 months. 24 3) On 12/5/25, Respondent filed a Response and Request for Dissolution indicating the date of 25 marriage is 5/27/22 and date of separation is 11/5/25 for a marriage of 3 years and 6 months. 26 4) On 2/10/26, Respondent filed a Request for Order seeking bifurcation of trial and termination of 27 marital status attached to which is form FL-315 (Request for Separate Trial). The matter was set 28 for hearing on 4/28/26. 29
1 5) On 2/19/26, Petitioner filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Respondent’s Request for 2 Order. Petitioner states Respondent has not shown good cause for bifurcation and termination of 3 marital status and Petitioner and Petitioner’s daughter (who is not Respondent’s child) would lose 4 health and mental health treatment as a result of bifurcation and termination of marital status, 5 which they receive through Petitioner’s Veteran’s Affairs entitlements. 6 6) On 2/25/26, Respondent filed a Reply Declaration.
Respondent asserts that Petitioner has access 7 to employer-sponsored health insurance and Petitioner’s adult daughter is not a child of the 8 marriage. 9 7) On 4/10/26, Petitioner filed a Request to Reschedule Hearing due to a prior work obligation at the 10 United States Immigration Court, which was granted over Respondent’s objection (filed 4/13/26). 11 The matter was continued to 6/4/26. 12 B. Findings and Order 13 1) The parties are ordered to appear. 14
15 II. Petitioner’s Request for Order filed 4/10/26 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) At the prior 4/26/26 hearing, the Court ordered, in pertinent part: Respondent is permitted to stay 18 in the property located at 20095 River Blvd. Mote Rio, CA 9546 to prepare and list the property 19 for sale within 7 days; Respondent shall cooperate with the realtor to sell the property. 20 2) On 4/10/26, Petitioner filed a Request for Order seeking: (a) an order requiring Respondent to 21 promptly execute all escrow, title, and loss mitigation requirements to clear an installation loan 22 (Good Leap loan) lien on the property; and (b) allocation of the GoodLeap loan (approximately 23 $28,391.60) to Respondent as her sole and separate debt, with an order that Petitioner will be 24 indemnified and held harmless for all resulting damage to the community estate caused by 25 Respondent’s failure to payoff of the GoodLeap loan and clear the GoodLeap loan lien on the 26 property.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Petitioner asserts that Respondent unilaterally encumbered the property through a 27 GoodLeap loan taken in her name only during marriage without Petitioner’s knowledge or 28 consent. This loan created a UCC lien on the property. Petitioner states the GoodLeap loan must 29 be paid off and a UCC termination recorded before the property can be sold. Petitioner asserts the
1 property is in active escrow with Fidelity National Title Company and the sale is anticipated to 2 result in a deficiency without including the GoodLeap loan. 3 3) On 4/20/26, Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration, attached to which is a UCC Financing 4 Statement by GoodLeap, LLC. 5 4) On 4/30/26, Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration attached to which is a forbearance plan 6 offer for the property from Planet Home Lending for the period of 5/1/26 – 7/1/26. 7 5) On 4/30/26, Petitioner filed a supplemental declaration seeking a psychiatric evaluation of 8 Respondent and appointment of an ellisor to execute a deed in lieu application by 7/26/26 to 9 avoid foreclosure on the property.
Petitioner asserts that Planet Home Lending requires the 10 property be listed for 4 months before they will accept a deed in lieu application, which is due by 11 7/26/26 (within a month of when the forbearance period expires). Otherwise, Planet Mortgage 12 may proceed to foreclosure sale. Petitioner requests appointment of an ellisor to sign: (a) all 13 documents required by Planet Mortgage to complete the deed in lieu of foreclosure or short sale 14 of the property; and (b) all documents required to release, satisfy, or resolve the GoodLeap lien 15 encumbering the property. 16 6) On 5/1/26, Respondent filed a Request to Reschedule Hearing.
Respondent seeks 45 days for 17 stabilization of new psychiatric medicine. Respondent asserts she is not adequately able to 18 prepare for or participate in the hearing. 19 7) On 5/1/26, Petitioner filed a Responsive Declaration to Request to Reschedule Hearing in 20 opposition to Petitioner’s request asserting imminent Court intervention is needed because the 21 property is at risk of foreclosure. 22 8) On 5/21/26, Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Petitioner’s Request for 23 Order.
Respondent asserts that she has fully cooperated with the sale of the property; however, 24 the property is substantially over-encumbered and will inevitably result in a short sale or proceed 25 to foreclosure. Respondent disputes Petitioner’s characterization of the GoodLeap loan. 26 Respondent states the forbearance period can be extended. It is Respondent’s position that 27 characterization and allocation issues should be reserved for trial. Respondent requests a 28 Mandatory Settlement Conference so the matter may proceed toward final resolution. 29 9) On 5/28/26, Petitioner filed an additional supplemental declaration.
1 B. Findings and Order 2 1) As a preliminary matter, the Court declines to consider Petitioner’s Supplemental Declaration 3 filed 5/28/26 as neither the Code of Civil Procedure, the Rules of Court, nor the San Francisco 4 Local Rules permit for the filing of such pleading without prior leave of Court. 5 2) The parties are ordered to appear. 6
10
14
18
22
26
29