Request for Order (RFO) seeking a stay of the Family Law Attorney’s Real Property Lien
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 July 9, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
2. CHERYL BENTON V. RANDALL BENTON 24FL1158
On April 14, 2026, Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking a stay of the Family Law Attorney’s Real Property Lien. All required documents were mail served on April 20th.
Respondent filed and served his Responsive Declaration to Request for Order on June 25th.
Petitioner is objecting to, and asking the court to stay recordation of, the “Family Law Attorney’s Real Property Lien” (hereinafter the “Lien”). She notes deficiencies in the lien and states that it should not be recorded because Respondent has sufficient assets with which to pay his attorneys.
Respondent asks the court to deny the requested stay. He states he has corrected the procedural deficiencies in the Lien and he argues that the community has sufficient interest in the property to allow for the Lien to attach to only his interest therein.
Family Code § 2033 allows either party to encumber his or her interest in community real property to pay reasonable attorney’s fees. Fam. Code § 2033(a). The lien attaches only to that party’s interest in the community property. Id. Where the encumbrance would likely result in an unequal division of property, impair the encumbering party’s ability to meet community obligations, or would otherwise be unjust, Family Code § 2034 allows for the limitation, or outright denial, of the lien. Fam. Code § 2034(a).
After reviewing the filings of the parties as well as the supporting documents submitted, the court does not find that the Lien, with an amount not to exceed $45,000, is likely to result in an unequal division of property as Respondent’s portion of the community interest is sufficient to cover the requested amount. As such, the motion to stay the Lien is denied.
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?”
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 #2: THE REQUEST TO STAY THE REAL PROPERTY LIEN IS DENIED.
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
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 July 9, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
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.