Request for Order (RFO) seeking child support, spousal support, attorney fees, mortgage and utility payments
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 July 2, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
6. ADAM KENT LEVERTON V. ERIKA NICOLE LEVERTON 25FL1094
On April 3, 2026, Respondent filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking spousal support, child support, attorney’s fees, and an order regarding the mortgage and utilities. She filed her Income and Expense Declaration and an attorney declaration concurrently therewith. All required documents were served on April 9th.
Petitioner filed and served his Responsive Declaration to Request for Order and his Income and Expense Declaration on June 17, 2026.
The Supplemental Declaration of Erika Leverton, Respondent was filed and served on June 25th. The court deems this to be a reply declaration.
Respondent is requesting guideline child support and guideline spousal support. She further requests attorney’s fees in the amount of $8,500 payable by Petitioner to Respondent’s counsel. Finally, she requests an order for Petitioner to pay all mortgage and utilities for the marital residence.
Petitioner opposes the support orders on the basis that the parties are currently residing in the same residence in a nesting arrangement. However, in the event the court is inclined to award support, he asks that Respondent be imputed with income. Also, if the court does award support, then Petitioner asks that both parties be equally responsible for community debts, including all of the associated housing costs (i.e. mortgage, insurance, property taxes, etc.). He further opposes the request for attorney fees as he does not have the ability to pay the fees of both parties.
The court has equitable power to deny or modify a support order when equity requires it. Jackson v. Jackson, 51 Cal. App. 3d 363 (1975). In keeping with California’s equitable approach to support orders, courts have found that in home support during a period of living together can constitute support sufficient to act as a credit against the amount owed in monetary terms. Helgestad v. Vargas, 231 Cal. App. 4th 719, 735 (2014).
Here, the court finds the most equitable outcome is to set support orders that do not commence until the 1st of the month following Respondent’s move from the marital residence. Given that an order of this nature is based on the premise that the supported spouse is receiving in-home support by way of the parties residing together, Petitioner is ordered to pay the entire cost of the mortgage, insurance, property taxes and utilities on the marital residence.
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?”
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 July 2, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
Regarding the amount of support, an award of temporary spousal support lies solely within the trial court’s discretion regarding each party’s respective need and ability to pay. See Marriage of Tong & Samson, 197 Cal. App. 4th 23, 29 (2011). Support is appropriate where it is necessary to enable a spouse to advance their earning capacity and obtain marketable skills sufficient to become self-supporting. Marriage of Watt, 24 Cal. App. 3d 340, 347-348 (1989). However, it is not an abuse of discretion for the court to decrease an award for support, or deny it altogether, based on the requesting spouse’s unreasonable delay or refusal to seek employment consistent with existing marketable skills and ability. In re Marriage of Dennis, 35 Cal. App. 3d 279, 283 (1973); See also Marriage of Mason, 93 Cal. App. 3d 215, 221 (1979).
Here, the Petition for Dissolution was filed on November 7, 2025. In the interim, Petitioner concedes that Respondent has had a mastectomy recently. Considering the foregoing, the court does not find that Respondent has acted unreasonably in failing to seek employment to date. Respondent is cautioned however, that the longer it takes for her to become self-supporting the more likely it is that the court will impute her with income in the future. For now however, the request to impute Respondent with income is denied without prejudice.
Utilizing the same figures as outlined in the attached Xspouse report, the court finds that child support is $2,118 and spousal support per the Alameda formula is $988 per month. The court adopts the attached Xspouse report and orders Petitioner to pay Respondent $3,106 per month as and for child support and temporary spousal support, payable on the 1st of the month until further order of the court or legal termination. This order is effective as of the 1st of the month on the first full month that Respondent has moved out of the marital residence.
The court further finds Petitioner routinely earns overtime pay and therefore, an overtime table has been included with the Xspouse. Petitioner is to pay Respondent a quarterly true up of any overtime earned. Petitioner is to provide Respondent with copies of his pay statements each quarter.
Finally, turning to the issue of attorney fees. The public policy of Family Code section 2030 is to provide “at the outset of litigation, consistent with the financial circumstances of the parties, parity between spouses in their ability to obtain effective legal representation.” In Re Marriage of Keech,75 Cal. App. 4th 860, 866 (1999). This ensures each party has access to legal representation to preserve each party’s rights. It “is not the redistribution of money from the greater income party to the lesser income party,” but
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 July 2, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
rather “parity.” Alan S. v Sup. Ct., 172 Cal. App. 4th 238,251(2009). In the face of a request for attorney’s fees and costs, the court is to make findings on “whether there is a disparity in access to funds to retain counsel, and whether one party is able to pay for legal representation of both parties.” Fam. Code § 2030(a)(2). Family Code section 2032 works in tandem with Section 2030 to ensure that any award of costs and fees is just and reasonable. Fam. Code § 2032.
Here, the court does find there to be a disparity in income however, given the large amount of debt that Petitioner seems to be paying the court does not find that he has the ability to pay for his attorney’s fees as well as those of Respondent. The request for attorney’s fees is therefore denied without prejudice.
Respondent is directed to prepare the Findings and Orders After Hearing (FOAH); however, this order is effective immediately upon the court’s adoption of the tentative ruling and is not conditioned on the preparation of the FOAH.
TENTATIVE RULING #6: THE COURT IS SETTING SUPPORT ORDERS THAT DO NOT COMMENCE UNTIL THE 1ST OF THE MONTH FOLLOWING RESPONDENT’S MOVE FROM THE MARITAL RESIDENCE. PETITIONER IS ORDERED TO PAY THE ENTIRE COST OF THE MORTGAGE, INSURANCE, PROPERTY TAXES AND UTILITIES ON THE MARITAL RESIDENCE.
THE REQUEST TO IMPUTE RESPONDENT WITH INCOME IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
THE COURT FINDS THAT CHILD SUPPORT IS $2,118 AND SPOUSAL SUPPORT PER THE ALAMEDA FORMULA IS $988 PER MONTH. THE COURT ADOPTS THE ATTACHED XSPOUSE REPORT AND ORDERS PETITIONER TO PAY RESPONDENT $3,106 PER MONTH AS AND FOR CHILD SUPPORT AND TEMPORARY SPOUSAL SUPPORT, PAYABLE ON THE 1ST OF THE MONTH UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT OR LEGAL TERMINATION. THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE AS OF THE 1ST OF THE MONTH ON THE FIRST FULL MONTH THAT RESPONDENT HAS MOVED OUT OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE.
THE COURT FURTHER FINDS PETITIONER ROUTINELY EARNS OVERTIME PAY AND THEREFORE, AN OVERTIME TABLE HAS BEEN INCLUDED WITH THE XSPOUSE. PETITIONER IS TO PAY RESPONDENT A QUARTERLY TRUE UP OF ANY OVERTIME EARNED. PETITIONER IS TO PROVIDE RESPONDENT WITH COPIES OF HIS PAY STATEMENTS EACH QUARTER.
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 July 2, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
THE REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
RESPONDENT IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE THE FINDINGS AND ORDERS AFTER HEARING (FOAH); HOWEVER, THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON THE COURT’S ADOPTION OF THE TENTATIVE RULING AND IS NOT CONDITIONED ON THE PREPARATION OF THE FOAH.
NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY PHONE CALL TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6725 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY PHONE CALL OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07.
Xspouse 2026-1-CA
Fixed Shares Father Mother Monthly figures Cash Flow #of children 0 2 2026 Guideline Proposed % time with NCP 49.99 % 0.00 % Comb. net spendable 7058 7488 Filing status HH/MLA HH/MLA GUIDELINE Percent change 0% 6% # exemptions 2 3 Nets(adjusted) Father Wages+salary 13175 0 Father 7058 Payment cost/benefit -3106 -2865 Self-employed income 0 0 Mother 0 Net spendable income 3952 4193 Other taxable income 0 0 Total 7058 Change from guideline 0 241 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% 56% 2118 401(k) employee contrib 0 0 Total taxes 2289 1859 Alameda SS 988 Adjustments to income 0 0 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Total 3106 SS paid prev marriage 0 0 # withholding allowances 0 0 - CS paid prev marriage 0 0 Net wage paycheck 9174 9174 Health insurance 856 0 Mother Other medical expense 0 0 Payment cost/benefit 3106 3295 Property tax expense 917 0 Net spendable income 3106 3295 Ded interest expense 1405 0 Proposed Change from guideline 0 189 Charitable contributions 0 0 Tactic 9 % of combined spendable 44% 44% Misc tax deductions 0 0 CS 2247 Qual bus income ded 0 0 SS % of saving over guideline 0% 44% 1048 Required union dues 176 0 Total Total taxes 0 0 3295 Mandatory retirement 2796 0 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Hardship deduction 0 * 0 * Saving 430 # withholding allowances 0 0 Other GDL deductions 0 0 Releases 2 Net wage paycheck 0 0 Child care expenses 0 0 Released to Father
Father pays Guideline CS, Guideline SS, Proposed CS, Proposed SS
FC 4055 checking: ON Per Child Information Timeshare cce(F) cce(M) Addons Payor Basic CS Payor Pres CS Payor All children 49 - 51 0 0 0 Father 2118 Father 2118 Father
49 - 51 0 0 0 Father 794 Father 794 Father 49 - 51 0 0 0 Father 1324 Father 1324 Father
Time: 10:52:37 Superior Court of California Date: 06/24/26 County of El Dorado
2026-06-24 10:56:16 Superior Court of California Xspouse 2026-1-CA County of El Dorado New Case
Annual Bonus Income Father Cost is an increase in support paid or a decrease in support received by this spouse Bonus income may reverse direction of CS and/or SS Annual bonus paid to Mother: 0 R = recipient of support Prior relationship(s): OFF
Additional Cost to Father Child Support Spousal Support Total CS Total SS Father's Bonus % of bonus $ % of bonus $ (adjusted) 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0 200 18.30 37 8.54 17 25,448 11,875 400 18.30 73 8.54 34 25,485 11,892 600 18.30 110 8.54 51 25,521 11,910 800 18.30 146 8.54 68 25,558 11,927 1,000 18.30 183 8.54 85 25,594 11,944 1,200 18.30 220 8.54 102 25,631 11,961 1,400 18.30 256 8.54 120 25,668 11,978 1,600 18.30 293 8.54 137 25,704 11,995 1,800 18.30 329 8.54 154 25,741 12,012 2,000 18.30 366 8.54 171 25,777 12,029 2,200 18.30 403 8.54 188 25,814 12,046 2,400 18.30 439 8.54 205 25,851 12,063 2,600 18.30 476 8.54 222 25,887 12,080 2,800 18.30 512 8.54 239 25,924 12,097 3,000 18.30 549 8.54 256 25,960 12,114 3,200 18.30 585 8.54 273 25,997 12,131 3,400 18.30 622 8.54 290 26,033 12,149 3,600 18.30 659 8.54 307 26,070 12,166 3,800 18.30 695 8.54 324 26,107 12,183 4,000 18.30 732 8.54 342 26,143 12,200 4,200 18.30 768 8.54 359 26,180 12,217 4,400 18.30 805 8.54 376 26,216 12,234 4,600 18.30 842 8.54 393 26,253 12,251 4,800 18.30 878 8.54 410 26,290 12,268 5,000 18.30 915 8.54 427 26,326 12,285 5,200 18.30 951 8.54 444 26,363 12,302 5,400 18.30 988 8.54 461 26,399 12,319 5,600 18.30 1,025 8.54 478 26,436 12,336 5,800 18.30 1,061 8.54 495 26,473 12,353 6,000 18.29 1,098 8.54 512 26,509 12,370 6,200 18.28 1,134 8.53 529 26,545 12,387 6,400 18.27 1,169 8.53 546 26,581 12,404 6,600 18.26 1,205 8.52 563 26,617 12,421 6,800 18.26 1,241 8.52 579 26,653 12,438 7,000 18.25 1,277 8.52 596 26,689 12,454 7,200 18.24 1,313 8.51 613 26,725 12,471 7,400 18.23 1,349 8.51 630 26,761 12,488 7,600 18.23 1,385 8.50 646 26,797 12,505 7,800 18.22 1,421 8.50 663 26,832 12,521 8,000 18.21 1,457 8.50 680 26,868 12,538 8,200 18.21 1,493 8.50 697 26,904 12,555 8,400 18.20 1,529 8.49 713 26,940 12,572 8,600 18.20 1,565 8.49 730 26,976 12,588 8,800 18.19 1,601 8.49 747 27,012 12,605
2026-06-24 10:56:16 Superior Court of California Xspouse 2026-1-CA County of El Dorado New Case
Annual Bonus Income Father Cost is an increase in support paid or a decrease in support received by this spouse Bonus income may reverse direction of CS and/or SS Annual bonus paid to Mother: 0 R = recipient of support Prior relationship(s): OFF
Additional Cost to Father Child Support Spousal Support Total CS Total SS Father's Bonus % of bonus $ % of bonus $ (adjusted) 9,000 18.19 1,637 8.49 764 27,048 12,622 9,200 18.18 1,673 8.48 781 27,084 12,639 9,400 18.18 1,709 8.48 797 27,120 12,656 9,600 18.17 1,745 8.48 814 27,156 12,672 9,800 18.17 1,780 8.48 831 27,192 12,689 10,000 18.16 1,816 8.48 848 27,228 12,706 10,200 18.16 1,852 8.47 864 27,264 12,723 10,400 18.16 1,888 8.47 881 27,300 12,739 10,600 18.15 1,924 8.47 898 27,336 12,756 10,800 18.15 1,960 8.47 915 27,372 12,773 11,000 18.15 1,996 8.47 931 27,407 12,790 11,200 18.14 2,032 8.47 948 27,443 12,807 11,400 18.14 2,068 8.46 965 27,479 12,823 11,600 18.14 2,104 8.46 982 27,515 12,840 11,800 18.13 2,140 8.46 999 27,551 12,857 12,000 18.13 2,176 8.46 1,015 27,587 12,874 12,200 18.13 2,212 8.46 1,032 27,623 12,890 12,400 18.13 2,248 8.46 1,049 27,659 12,907 12,600 18.13 2,285 8.46 1,066 27,696 12,924 12,800 18.14 2,322 8.47 1,084 27,733 12,942 13,000 18.15 2,359 8.47 1,101 27,771 12,959 13,200 18.16 2,397 8.47 1,118 27,808 12,977 13,400 18.16 2,434 8.48 1,136 27,845 12,994 13,600 18.17 2,471 8.48 1,153 27,882 13,011 13,800 18.18 2,508 8.48 1,171 27,920 13,029 14,000 18.18 2,546 8.49 1,188 27,957 13,046 14,200 18.19 2,583 8.49 1,205 27,994 13,064 14,400 18.20 2,620 8.49 1,223 28,032 13,081 14,600 18.20 2,657 8.49 1,240 28,069 13,098 14,800 18.21 2,695 8.50 1,257 28,106 13,116 15,000 18.21 2,732 8.50 1,275 28,143 13,133 15,200 18.22 2,769 8.50 1,292 28,181 13,150 15,400 18.22 2,806 8.50 1,309 28,217 13,168 15,600 18.22 2,842 8.50 1,326 28,253 13,184 15,800 18.22 2,878 8.50 1,343 28,289 13,201 16,000 18.21 2,914 8.50 1,360 28,326 13,218 16,200 18.21 2,950 8.50 1,377 28,362 13,235 16,400 18.21 2,987 8.50 1,394 28,398 13,252 16,600 18.21 3,023 8.50 1,411 28,434 13,269 16,800 18.21 3,059 8.50 1,427 28,470 13,286 17,000 18.21 3,095 8.50 1,444 28,506 13,303 17,200 18.21 3,131 8.50 1,461 28,543 13,319 17,400 18.20 3,167 8.49 1,478 28,579 13,336 17,600 18.20 3,204 8.49 1,495 28,615 13,353 17,800 18.20 3,240 8.49 1,512 28,651 13,370
2026-06-24 10:56:16 Superior Court of California Xspouse 2026-1-CA County of El Dorado New Case
Annual Bonus Income Father Cost is an increase in support paid or a decrease in support received by this spouse Bonus income may reverse direction of CS and/or SS Annual bonus paid to Mother: 0 R = recipient of support Prior relationship(s): OFF
Additional Cost to Father Child Support Spousal Support Total CS Total SS Father's Bonus % of bonus $ % of bonus $ (adjusted) 18,000 18.20 3,276 8.49 1,529 28,687 13,387 18,200 18.20 3,312 8.49 1,546 28,724 13,404 18,400 18.20 3,348 8.49 1,563 28,760 13,421 18,600 18.20 3,385 8.49 1,579 28,796 13,438 18,800 18.20 3,421 8.49 1,596 28,832 13,455 19,000 18.19 3,457 8.49 1,613 28,868 13,471 19,200 18.19 3,493 8.49 1,630 28,904 13,488 19,400 18.19 3,529 8.49 1,647 28,941 13,505 19,600 18.19 3,565 8.49 1,664 28,977 13,522 19,800 18.19 3,602 8.49 1,681 29,013 13,539 20,000 18.19 3,638 8.49 1,698 29,049 13,556 20,200 18.19 3,674 8.49 1,714 29,085 13,573 20,400 18.19 3,710 8.49 1,731 29,122 13,590 20,600 18.19 3,746 8.49 1,748 29,158 13,607 20,800 18.19 3,783 8.49 1,765 29,194 13,623 21,000 18.18 3,819 8.49 1,782 29,230 13,640 21,200 18.18 3,855 8.49 1,799 29,266 13,657 21,400 18.18 3,891 8.48 1,816 29,302 13,674 21,600 18.18 3,927 8.48 1,833 29,339 13,691 21,800 18.18 3,963 8.48 1,850 29,375 13,708 22,000 18.18 4,000 8.48 1,866 29,411 13,725 22,200 18.18 4,036 8.48 1,883 29,447 13,742 22,400 18.18 4,072 8.48 1,900 29,483 13,758 22,600 18.18 4,108 8.48 1,917 29,520 13,775 22,800 18.18 4,144 8.48 1,934 29,556 13,792 23,000 18.18 4,181 8.48 1,951 29,592 13,809 23,200 18.18 4,217 8.48 1,968 29,628 13,826 23,400 18.17 4,253 8.48 1,985 29,664 13,843 23,600 18.17 4,289 8.48 2,001 29,700 13,860 23,800 18.17 4,325 8.48 2,018 29,737 13,877 24,000 18.17 4,361 8.48 2,035 29,773 13,894 24,200 18.17 4,398 8.48 2,052 29,809 13,910 24,400 18.17 4,434 8.48 2,069 29,845 13,927 24,600 18.17 4,470 8.48 2,086 29,881 13,944 24,800 18.17 4,506 8.48 2,103 29,918 13,961 25,000 18.17 4,542 8.48 2,120 29,954 13,978