Miriam Gayle Kane v. David William Kane

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 MIRIAM GAYLE KANE,) Case Number: FDI-23-798208) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: June 25, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 DAVID WILLIAM KANE,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS; JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT; 13 SANCTIONS; CASE MANAGEMENT 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 16 Court makes the following findings and orders: 17 A. Procedural History 18 1) The parties are Petitioner Miriam Gayle Kane and Respondent David William Kane. 19 2) On 5/1/26, Petitioner filed a Request for Order seeking (a) enforcement of terms of the parties’ 20 11/6/25 Judgment; (b) $5,000 in Family Code section 271 sanctions; (c) $73,488 in attorney’s 21 fees and costs for fees currently owed and anticipated fees (including expert fees); and (d) a trial 22 setting date. 23 3) On 5/7/26, Petitioner filed a Proof of Service indicating service of Petitioner’s Request for Order 24 and supportive documents was effectuated by electronic service on Respondent’s counsel on 25 5/7/26. 26 4) On 6/2/26, Petitioner filed an Income and Expense Declaration. 27 5) On 6/2/26, Petitioner filed a Proof of Service indicating service of Petitioner’s Income and 28 Expense Declaration was effectuated by electronic service on Respondent’s counsel on 6/2/26. 29

1 6) On 6/22/26, Petitioner filed an Update Declaration augmenting the Family section 2030 2 attorney’s fees request from $73,488 to $86,827 with attached attorney billing statements. 3 7) Respondent did not file a Responsive Declaration. 4 B. Findings and Order 5 1) Petitioner’s unopposed request for enforcement of terms of the parties’ 11/6/25 Judgment is 6 GRANTED. Based on the terms of the 11/6/25 Judgment, the Court finds good cause to issue the 7 following orders: 8 2) Regarding the Auburn Street property (located at 35 Auburn Street, San Francisco), the Court 9 finds that Respondent failed to provide timely proof of any Family Code section 2640 10 reimbursement claims pursuant to section 2(a)(i) of the Judgment; therefore, no Family Code 11 section 2640 reimbursement claim related to the Auburn Street property will be credited absent 12 further order of the Court. 13 3) The Court confirms that the agreed value of the Auburn Street property for purposes of a buyout 14 is $1,550,000.

See section 2(a)(ii) of the Judgment. 15 4) By 7/9/26, Respondent shall notify Petitioner in writing whether he intends to proceed with a 16 buyout of Petitioner’s community property interest in Auburn Street property based on the agreed 17 $1,550,000 value. 18 5) If Respondent elects to proceed with the buyout, Respondent shall complete the buyout by 9/9/26, 19 unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. 20 6) The Court reserves jurisdiction over the disposition of the Auburn Street property and any related 21 issues. 22 7) If Respondent does not timely elect to proceed with or complete the buyout, Petitioner may file a 23 new Request for Order seeking to compel the sale of the Auburn Street property. 24 8) Regarding retirement accounts, the parties agreed to jointly retain Moon Schwartz and Madden 25 (MSM) to characterize and equalize all retirement accounts.

See section 2(b)(i) of the Judgment. 26 9) Respondent shall supply all preliminary information and documents requested by MSM by 27 7/2/26. Respondent shall pay his 50% share of MSM's estimated cost and supply any additional 28 information and documents requested by MSM within 7 days of MSM's request. 29

1 10) The Court reserves jurisdiction to issue additional orders to ensure completion of the equalization 2 or retirements accounts and to impose sanctions in the event Respondent fails to comply. 3 11) Regarding retrieval of personal property, the parties shall coordinate a date certain for the transfer 4 of Petitioner’s personal property consistent with the Judgment. The parties shall meet and confer 5 regarding and deadline and delivery of the items as the terms of the Judgment require Respondent 6 to deliver the items to a storage site in either San Francisco or San Mateo.

See section 3(a). The 7 parties are encouraged to work cooperatively together to make the transfer of property as 8 seamless for both sides as possible. 9 12) Petitioner’s request for $86,827 in Family Code section 2030 attorney’s fees is DENIED. 10 13) Either party may file an At Issue Memorandum to request a Status Conference at which time a 11 trial date can be requested if it is determined that the parties are ready for trial on the remaining 12 issues. 13 14) Counsel for Petitioner shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 14 15) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 15 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 16 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 17 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 18 proposed order after hearing directly to the court.

Failure to submit the order after hearing within 19 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 20 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 21

25

29