Request for Order to modify child and spousal support
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 9, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
4. MARK DAVIS V. MARY DAVIS 22FL0006
This matter is before the court for hearing on the Request for Order (RFO) filed by the Petitioner on October 1, 2024, to modify child support1 and spousal support. Petitioner concurrently filed an Income and Expense Declaration (I&E). The hearing on Petitioner’s RFO has been continued multiple times based upon stipulation of the parties. The court notes, however, there is no stipulation in the court’s file reserving the court’s jurisdiction to retroactively modify support to the date the RFO was filed.
On March 24, 2026, the Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration, as well as a current I&E. Both filings were electronically served upon the Petitioner’s attorney that same day, according to the proof of service, also filed March 24, 2026. Respondent consents to guideline child support from October 1, 2024, through May 31, 20252 (Mary Davis Decl., ¶ 3.a.) and zero spousal support as of October 1, 2024 (Mary Davis Decl., ¶ 3.b.), but requests payment of Petitioner’s outstanding arrears, plus interest, in a lump sum payment to be made no later than 30 days after the court’s order3 (Mary Davis Decl., ¶ 3.c.).
On April 6, 2026, the Petitioner filed an updated I&E, which was electronically served upon Respondent’s attorney that same day, according to the attached Proof of Service. The court does not consider the Petitioner’s April 6, 2026 filing due to its untimeliness. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b) [reply papers shall be filed at least five court days before the hearing].)
TENTATIVE RULING #4: THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR THE HEARING.
1 During the period of October 1, 2024, through present, there is only one minor child for which the parties are obligated to provide support, namely, DD (DOB: 11/22/2006). Both parties acknowledge that their two older children previously “aged out.” (Fam. Code, § 3901, subd. (a)(1).) 2 It is the court’s understanding that May 31, 2025, is the date in which DD, who has attained 18 years of age, was no longer a full-time high school student. (See
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?”