DORA LUZ MACIAS SANCHEZ v. ADAN MIGUEL VELAZQUEZ BLAS

Husband listed Wells Fargo business and personal checking 16 accounts with a balance of $27,000 and $100,000 in a Robin Hood account. 17 6) On 12/11/2025, Wife filed the instant Request for Order. Wife states Husband refuses to provide 18 her with current bank statements. Wife states Judge Costin admonished Husband in September 19 2024 that Mexico had no jurisdiction over the divorce, yet Husband continued with the divorce 20 proceeding in Mexico and received a final judgment in October 2024. Wife states Husband 21 claims he no longer needs to provide material updates regarding his finances to Wife for this 22 reason.

Wife attached a declaration by her older adult son Arturo Macias dated 9/19/2025 who 23 states he saw Husband directing two of his employees to load a truck with construction debris on 24 9/7/2025. Arturo also states that “on a later date,” he encountered Husband at a restaurant and 25 Husband told him that if he testified against him, they would “end up bad” which Arturo states he 26 understood as a threat. Wife attached a photograph which shows a “no stopping” posting for the 27 dates 10/15/2025 – 1/15/2026 which bears an address on Guerrero Street and which also states, 28 “Future General Construction Inc. (415) 373 – 8527.”

Wife further attached a document from the 29 IRS dated 10/14/2025 which states, “The payee information you reported on Form 1099 for tax

1 year 2024 may be incorrect.” Wife states this document shows that Husband was paying his 2 employees and reporting those payments to the IRS. Wife asks the Court to: 3 a. Order Husband to file and serve a current, complete, and accurate Income and Expense 4 Declaration. 5 b. Order Husband to provide all current bank statements, investment account statements, 6 credit card statements, and business records, including but not limited to records of 7 Future General Construction. 8 c. Order monetary sanctions against Husband for failure to comply with disclosure 9 requirements, including attorney’s fees and costs incurred by Wife. 10 d.

Order Husband to pay attorney’s fees for increased litigation caused by his misconduct 11 under Family Code sections 2030 – 2032 and 271. 12 e. Order Husband to produce all contracts, agreements, and related documents for the 13 construction project associated with the city permit issued to Future General 14 Construction, including contracts with property owners, subcontractors, or clients. 15 f. Draw an adverse inference that Husband has been working and earning income during 16 the period he claimed unemployment, based on evidence of construction work, city- 17 issued permits, and business activity. 18 g.

Impute income to Husband consistent with his earning capacity and prior unemployment 19 income. 20 h. Reinstate or modify child and spousal support to reflect Husband’s actual income or 21 earning capacity. 22 i. Order Husband not to transfer, hide, or dissipate assets until property disclosure is 23 provided. 24 j. Order Husband not to close or move accounts without notice to Wife. 25 7) Wife’s 12/11/2025 Request for Order was first set for hearing on 1/16/2026 before Judge Gold. 26 At that hearing, both parties appeared in pro per.

Per the Findings and Order After Hearing filed 27 1/28/2026, Judge Gold denied Wife’s request for discovery because Wife “did not submit the 28 required documents for the discovery motion.” Judge Gold also continued the hearing on Wife’s 29 requests for support and attorney’s fees to 3/17/2026 in Dept. 404.

1 8) At the 3/17/2026 hearing, the Court ordered the parties to appear in order for the Court to hear 2 additional argument from the parties. At the time the case was called, Husband was present, but 3 Wife was not. The Court continued the hearing to 4/9/2026 because it believed Wife had 4 appeared on Zoom at some point that morning and because a Spanish interpreter was not 5 available to translate for Husband. 6 9) On 3/30/2026, Husband filed a Responsive Declaration. Husband states he previously provided 7 bank and financial records for 2024 and 2025, including records through October and November 8 2025, and that Wife is seeking duplicative information.

Husband states that the construction 9 project referenced by Wife was permitted in October 2025, work began in early November 2025, 10 and the project is being performed by licensed subcontractors. Husband states that no net income 11 has yet been realized and any funds received have been used to pay subcontractors and materials. 12 Husband states his anticipated compensation is approximately 10% and has not yet been received. 13 Husband states that their son Gabriel turned 18 on 10/6/2025 and he requested documentation 14 verifying that Gabriel is still enrolled and attending high school, but no documentation has been 15 provided.

Husband states that in January 2026 he visited Downtown High School and was told 16 that Gabriel was completing the remainder of his coursework online, had accumulated 90 work 17 hours during that semester, and was expected to finish his coursework in February 2026. Husband 18 states that because Gabriel has not been a full-time high school student, he is not obligated to 19 continue to pay child support for Gabriel. Husband further asks the Court to strike or disregard 20 Exhibit F of Wife’s Request for Order which consist of an IRS notice which was addressed to 21 Husband’s business entity and was opened and submitted without his authorization.

Husband 22 attached to his declaration: an Income and Expense Declaration stating that he is currently 23 earning $0, a contract for Future General Construction dated October 2025, various subcontractor 24 agreements, bank statements for October – November 2025, various medical records for himself, 25 an English translation of a divorce certificate from Mexico (which Husband represents granted a 26 divorce of the parties on 12/13/2024, but does not address any support or property issue), and a 27 letter dated 1/22/2026 from Downtown High School which states: “Gabriel Vazquez... is taking 28 an online course with us and is halfway through.

He should be done in February. Also he is 29

1 submitting 90 work hours this semester and then he will be officially done. Gabriel will have a 2 ceremony in June.” 3 10) There is no Proof of Service on file for Husband’s 3/30/2026 Responsive Declaration. 4 11) At the 4/9/2026 hearing, Wife appeared but Husband did not. The Court continued the matter to 5 6/2/2026. The Court also ordered Husband to file a Proof of Service confirming that his 6 Responsive Declaration was served on Wife. 7 12) On 5/22/2026, Wife filed a Declaration which Wife states is “in response to Respondent’s 8 declaration.”

Wife provided records which Wife states show the following projects and permits 9 associated with Husband: 2134 Lincoln Way, San Francisco — Application No. 202405142072, 10 permit triage date May 14, 2024, final inspection/completion July 15, 2024; 3562 Sacramento 11 Street, San Francisco — Application No. 202504245119, permit date April 24, 2025, stated 12 permit price approximately $20,000, and records showing the project reached completion/final 13 stage around November 21, 2025; 4490 Mission Street, San Francisco — Application No. 14 202604300436, permit date April 30, 2026, final inspection/completion May 19, 2026; and 15 additional projects appearing in public records include 1675 Eddy Street, 651 37th Avenue, 332 16 Fell Street, and additional construction-related projects during 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026.

Wife 17 states that Husband stopped paying child and spousal support after October 2025. Wife 18 acknowledges that Gabriel turned 18 on 10/6/2025, but states that support can continue for a child 19 who is a full-time high school student. Wife states that Husband should not be permitted to 20 selectively use school-related information solely for purposes of avoiding support obligations. 21 Wife asks the Court to: 22 a. Order Husband to provide documentary proof of his claims that the construction project 23 referenced by Wife was performed by subcontractors and that funds received were paid 24 for subcontractors and materials and that his compensation from the project was expected 25 to be only 10% 26 b.

Order Husband to disclose all personal and business accounts, including any accounts 27 connected to Zelle, Venmo, Cash App, Apple Pay, PayPal, or similar payment 28 applications 29

1 c. Order Husband to provide current, complete medical records to support his claims that he 2 cannot perform physical labor due to medical conditions 3 d. Order Husband to provide complete records relating to any Uber, Lyft, or other rideshare 4 or delivery platform accounts operated by Husband because Husband previously 5 represented that he purchased a vehicle so he could work for Uber 6 e. Order Husband to provide copies of his complete passport records showing repeated 7 travel between the United States and Mexico 8 f.

Deny Husband’s request to strike the IRS notice which she states supports her need for 9 further disclosure and investigation regarding Husband’s business and potential reporting 10 issues involving payments. Wife states the IRS notice was not improperly obtained as it 11 was received at her home address. 12 g. Disregard any documents or proceedings from Mexico as Husband did not provide 13 properly authenticated records, certified translations, and competent evidence 14 establishing their reliability.

Wife also argues this case is pending in California, both 15 parties reside in the United States, and support obligations should be determined under 16 California law and based on reliable evidence. 17 h. Maintain or reinstate appropriate child and spousal support orders 18 i. Order payment of arrears and any unpaid support obligations 19 2) There is no Proof of Service on file for Wife’s 5/22/2026 Declaration. 20 B. Findings and Order 21 1) Regarding Wife’s request that the Court “disregard any documents or proceedings from Mexico,” 22 although Wife states that Judge Costin previously admonished Husband that Mexico has no 23 jurisdiction to resolve the issues in the parties’ divorce case, there is no such statement in the 24 Court’s prior Findings and Orders After Hearing regarding this issue.

Husband asserts that 25 Mexico ordered the parties divorced as of 11/8/2024, yet Husband continued to litigate claims in 26 this case (and this Court continued to make orders regarding child and spousal support) well past 27 that date. Husband has also not provided evidence to date that Mexico has made any orders 28 regarding support or property division. The Court does not have sufficient information before it to 29

1 make a finding that it does not have jurisdiction to continue making orders related to child and 2 spousal support. This Court will continue to make orders in this case on these grounds. 3 2) Husband provided evidence which appears to show that Gabriel has recently not been a full-time 4 high school student. Wife provided no proof that Gabriel has been a full-time high school student 5 between 10/6/2025 (when Gabriel turned 18) through the present date. The Court therefore finds 6 that Wife has not met her burden to establish that Husband’s duty to pay child support continued 7 beyond Gabriel’s eighteenth birthday pursuant to Family Code section 3901.

Wife’s request that 8 the Court order child support arrears effective October 2025 is denied. Similarly, Wife’s request 9 that the Court modify child support retroactive to the date she filed the instant Request for Order 10 (12/11/2025) is denied. 11 3) Wife’s request that the Court order Husband to provide documentation regarding his business 12 activities, earnings, financial holdings, medical condition, and travel is denied. If there is 13 additional information that Wife seeks, she must conduct discovery. 14 4) Regarding Wife’s request to increase temporary spousal support based on purported additional 15 earnings by Husband, the Court finds that the limited evidence that Wife has presented to date 16 does not clearly show that Husband is earning more than the amount the Court previously 17 imputed to Husband (i.e., $3,323 per month in full-time minimum wage income).

Wife’s request 18 to modify the income attributed to Husband for purposes of calculating temporary spousal 19 support is therefore denied without prejudice. As stated above, Wife may conduct discovery. If 20 she discovers additional admissible evidence that supports her claims, she may file a new Request 21 for Order. 22 5) However, the termination of child support does warrant a modification of temporary spousal 23 support. Effective 12/11/2025 (the date Wife filed her Request for Order), in accordance with the 24 XSpouse attached hereto and incorporated herein (which uses the same inputs for the parties’ 25 incomes used in the XSpouse attached to the Findings and Order After Hearing filed 8/26/2025), 26 Husband is ordered to pay Wife $306 per month in temporary guideline spousal support, which 27 Husband shall pay Wife by the 15th of each month. 28 6) The Court finds that Father owes to Mother temporary spousal support arrears in the amount of 29 $197 for the period 12/11/2025 – 12/31/2025 and $1,530 for the period 1/1/2026 – 5/31/2026, for

1 total temporary spousal support arrears due and owing of $1,727. Husband shall pay this amount 2 plus an additional $306 for temporary spousal support for June 2026 (for a total of $2,033) to 3 Wife no later than 6/15/2026. Husband shall thereafter continue to pay to Wife temporary spousal 4 support of $306 by the 15th of each month until further order of the Court or agreement of the 5 parties. 6 7) Regarding Wife’s request that the Court order Husband “not to transfer, hide, or dissipate assets 7 until property disclosure is provided” and “not to close or move accounts without notice to Wife,” 8 the Court notes that the Standard Family Law Restraining Orders set forth in Family Code section 9 2040 remain in full force and effect. 10 8) Wife’s requests for attorney’s fees sanctions is denied as Wife has not presented evidence that she 11 has actually incurred attorney’s fees in this matter to date. 12 9) Wife did not provide the information required by California Rules of Court, rule 5.427(b) to 13 support her request for need-based attorney’s fees and therefore her request is denied without 14 prejudice to a new Request for Order which includes all of the necessary information. 15 10) Husband’s request to strike or disregard Exhibit F of Wife’s Request for Order is granted.

The 16 Court will disregard Exhibit F of Wife’s Request for Order. 17 11) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 18

22

26

sanchez v. blas xspouse.xsp Xspouse 2026-1-CA

Fixed Shares Husband Wife Monthly figures Cash Flow #of children 0 0 2026 Guideline Proposed % time with NCP 0.00 % 0.00 % Comb. net spendable 4370 4370 Filing status SINGLE SINGLE GUIDELINE Percent change 0% 0% # exemptions 1 * 1 * Nets(adjusted) Husband Wages+salary 3323 1800 Husband 2768 Payment cost/benefit -306 -306 Self-employed income 0 0 Wife 1602 Net spendable income 2462 2462 Other taxable income 0 0 Total 4370 Change from guideline 0 0 TANF+CS received 0 0 Support Other nontaxble income 0 0 Addons % of combined spendable 56% 56% 0 New spouse income 0 0 Guideln CS % of saving over guideline 0% 0% 0 401(k) employee contrib 0 0 Total taxes 555 555 S.Clara SS 306 Adjustments to income 0 0 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Total 306 SS paid prev marriage 0 0 # withholding allowances 0 0 CS range: 0-0 CS paid prev marriage 0 0 Net wage paycheck 2656 2656 Health insurance 0 0 Wife Other medical expense 0 0 Payment cost/benefit 306 306 Property tax expense 0 0 Net spendable income 1908 1908 Ded interest expense 0 0 Proposed Change from guideline 0 0 Charitable contributions 0 0 Tactic 9 % of combined spendable 44% 44% Misc tax deductions 0 0 CS 0 Qual bus income ded 0 0 SS % of saving over guideline 0% 0% 306 Required union dues 0 0 Total Total taxes 198 198 306 Mandatory retirement 0 0 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Hardship deduction 0 * 0 * Saving 0 # withholding allowances 0 0 Other GDL deductions 0 0 Releases 0 Net wage paycheck 1500 1500 Child care expenses 0 0

Husband pays Guideline SS, Proposed SS

Time: 10:45:42 Superior Court of California Date: 06/01/26 County of San Francisco