Request for Order (RFO) seeking spousal support and an order to sell the marital residence
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 July 9, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
5. SANDRA MCGAGIN V. BRUCE MCGAGIN 25FL0718
On April 14, 2026, Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking spousal support and an order to sell the marital residence. She filed her Income and Expense Declaration concurrently therewith. Both documents were served on April 17th; however, the Notice of Tentative Ruling was not served.
On June 23rd, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order Regarding Sale of Marital Residence and Payment of Expenses.
Respondent filed and served his Responsive Declaration to Request for Order and his Income and Expense Declaration on June 25, 2026.
Petitioner is requesting guideline spousal support in the amount of $3,026 pursuant to the Xspouse report attached as Exhibit A to her RFO. She further asks that the marital home be listed for sale within 30 days and both parties be ordered to comply with the recommendations of the jointly selected real estate agent regarding all aspects of the sale, including listing the property and evaluating and accepting offers. She asks that all net proceeds from the sale be deposited into her attorney’s trust account pending further order of the court or written agreement of the parties.
Respondent asks the court to deviate from guideline based on his hardship. He also asks the court to preclude Petitioner from seeking any reimbursement from Respondent’s CalPERS monthly pension during the time he is ordered to pay spousal support based on the CalPERS income and an order reserving claims for reimbursements/credits for Respondent’s post-separation payment of expenses on behalf of Petitioner and/or towards joint obligations.
First and foremost, the court finds the June 23rd stipulation of the parties resolves Petitioner’s requests regarding the sale of the marital residence and the proceeds thereof. As such, the court declines to rule on those requests as they are now moot.
Regarding the issue of support, generally speaking, a married person has a duty to support his or her spouse. Cal. Fam. Code § 4300. The intent is to ensure that each party, upon separation, is able to maintain the marital standard of living. See Cal. Fam. Code § 4330
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 9, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
by the court, an award for temporary support is generally unrestricted by any statutory authority. See Marriage of Tong & Samson, 197 Cal. App. 4th 23, 29 (2011).
Here, in keeping with Respondent’s duty to continue his support of Petitioner, the court does not find good cause to deviate from guideline support as he requests. Respondent’s argument, simply that his expenses will exceed his income, is not sufficient grounds to deviate from guideline as such, the request is denied. The court is, however, reserving jurisdiction over Respondent’s ability to seek reimbursements and/or credits for expenses paid since the date of separation. The court is also reserving jurisdiction on the issue of Petitioner’s ability to claim an interest in Respondent’s pension.
Utilizing the figures as outlined in the attached Xspouse report, the court finds that spousal support per the Alameda formula is $2,402 per month. The court adopts the attached Xspouse report and orders Respondent to pay Petitioner $2,402 per month as and for temporary spousal support, payable on the 15th of the month until further order of the court or legal termination. This order is effective as of April 15, 2026.
The court finds the above order results in arrears in the amount of $7,206 through and including June 15, 2026. The court orders Respondent pay Petitioner $300.25 on the 1st of each month until paid in full (approximately 24 months). If any payment is missed or late the entire amount shall become immediately due and payable with legal interest.
Petitioner 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 #5: THE COURT FINDS THE JUNE 23RD STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES RESOLVES PETITIONER’S REQUESTS REGARDING THE SALE OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE AND THE PROCEEDS THEREOF. AS SUCH, THE COURT DECLINES TO RULE ON THOSE REQUESTS AS THEY ARE NOW MOOT.
THE COURT DOES NOT FIND GOOD CAUSE TO DEVIATE FROM GUIDELINE SUPPORT AS REQUESTED BY RESPONDENT. THE COURT IS, HOWEVER, RESERVING JURISDICTION OVER RESPONDENT’S ABILITY TO SEEK REIMBURSEMENTS AND/OR CREDITS FOR EXPENSES PAID SINCE THE DATE OF SEPARATION. THE COURT IS ALSO RESERVING JURISDICTION ON THE ISSUE OF PETITIONER’S ABILITY TO CLAIM AN INTEREST IN RESPONDENT’S PENSION.
LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 July 9, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.
UTILIZING THE FIGURES AS OUTLINED IN THE ATTACHED XSPOUSE REPORT, THE COURT FINDS THAT SPOUSAL SUPPORT PER THE ALAMEDA FORMULA IS $2,402 PER MONTH. THE COURT ADOPTS THE ATTACHED XSPOUSE REPORT AND ORDERS RESPONDENT TO PAY PETITIONER $2,402 PER MONTH AS AND FOR TEMPORARY SPOUSAL SUPPORT, PAYABLE ON THE 15TH OF THE MONTH UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT OR LEGAL TERMINATION. THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE AS OF APRIL 15, 2026.
THE COURT FINDS THE ABOVE ORDER RESULTS IN ARREARS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,206 THROUGH AND INCLUDING JUNE 15, 2026. THE COURT ORDERS RESPONDENT PAY PETITIONER $300.25 ON THE 1ST OF EACH MONTH UNTIL PAID IN FULL (APPROXIMATELY 24 MONTHS). IF ANY PAYMENT IS MISSED OR LATE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT SHALL BECOME IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE WITH LEGAL INTEREST.
PETITIONER 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 Husband Wife Monthly figures Cash Flow #of children 0 0 2026 Guideline Proposed % time with NCP 0.00 % 0.00 % Comb. net spendable 12336 12336 Filing status MFJ-> <-MFJ GUIDELINE Percent change 0% 0% # exemptions 1 * 1 Nets(adjusted) Husband Wages+salary 0 0 Husband 9522 Payment cost/benefit -2402 -2402 Self-employed income 0 0 Wife 2814 Net spendable income 7120 7120 Other taxable income 11629 3375 Total 12336 Change from guideline 0 0 TANF+CS received 0 0 Support Other nontaxble income 0 0 Addons % of combined spendable 58% 58% 0 New spouse income 0 0 Guideln CS % of saving over guideline 0% 0% 0 401(k) employee contrib 0 0 Total taxes 1933 1933 Alameda SS 2402 Adjustments to income 0 0 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Total 2402 SS paid prev marriage 0 0 # withholding allowances 0w 0w - CS paid prev marriage 0 0 Net wage paycheck 0 0 Health insurance 174 0 Wife Other medical expense 0 0 Payment cost/benefit 2402 2402 Property tax expense 668 0 Net spendable income 5216 5216 Ded interest expense 0 0 Proposed Change from guideline 0 0 Charitable contributions 0 0 Tactic 9 % of combined spendable 42% 42% Misc tax deductions 0 0 CS 0 Qual bus income ded 0 0 SS % of saving over guideline 0% 0% 2402 Required union dues 0 0 Total Total taxes 561 561 2402 Mandatory retirement 0 0 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Hardship deduction 0 * 0 * Saving 0 # withholding allowances 0w 0w Other GDL deductions 0 0 Releases 0 Net wage paycheck 0 0 Child care expenses 0 0
Husband pays Guideline SS, Proposed SS
Time: 17:11:47 Superior Court of California Date: 07/07/26 County of El Dorado