SMITH VS SMITH

vacated and no appearances are necessary.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25:

FL-25-002073 - LARA VS LARA Petitioner's Request for Order re Enforcement of Judgment, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. Proof of personal service of Respondent is on file and demonstrates presumptively valid and timely individual notice and service in compliance with the Court's Order Shortening Time and Family Code section 215. Respondent has not filed a Responsive Declaration or other opposition.

Accordingly, on the basis of Petitioner's declaration and the Court's reservation of jurisdiction over the real property located at 1100 W. Tuolumne Rd. in Turlock, California, the Court is inclined to grant the following order requests: (1)That the property be listed for sale with the realtor designated by Petitioner; (2) That Respondent is ordered to cooperate and to sign all necessary and appropriate documents necessary to effectuate this order; (3) That should Respondent not do so, then Petitioner is authorized to seek an ex parte order for appointment of the clerk as elisor to sign on Respondent's behalf, provided Petitioner complies with the local rules regarding elisor appointments; (4) That Petitioner be given temporary exclusive possession and control of the subject property pending sale; (5) That the funds upon sale and close of escrow be deposited to an FDIC insured, interest-bearing blocked account of Petitioner's selection pending further order of the Court and determination of equalization, if any, pursuant to the final judgment entered in this matter on April 30, 2026.

All other requests are denied without prejudice.

FL-26-001285 - SMITH VS SMITH Petitioner's Request for Order re Child Custody, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. The child custody and visitation request was mediated on June 15, 2026, and is not at issue here. That said, the Court notes that counsel for Respondent filed a Supplemental Declaration on June 26, 2026, and alleges a serious subsequently arising matter involving on of the minor children. Counsel for both parties shall meet and confer prior to hearing and advise the Court whether there is an urgent need to address the issues outside of the existing child custody and visitation orders. The Court will then exercise discretion as to any orders necessary for the health, welfare and best interests of the minor child.

Regarding the property control request, Respondent's Responsive Declaration indicates agreement but with caveats. Accordingly, counsel for both parties shall also meet and confer on the nature and scope of temporary exclusive possession pendente lite and advise the Court as to whether the matter is resolved or necessitates further hearing or judicial intervention. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98(a).)