Frederick Gundran v. Patricia Gundran

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 23, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM

15. FREDERICK GUNRAN V. PATRICIA GUNDRAN 25FL0827

Respondent filed a Request for Order (RFO) along with an Order Shortening Time (OST) on April 8, 2026. On April 10, 2026, the court granted the OST and set the matter for a hearing on April 23, 2026. Respondent was directed to serve Petitioner on or before April 10, 2026. Petitioner was directed to file a Responsive Declaration on or before April 17, 2026. Proof of Service shows Petitioner was personally served on April 10th.

Petitioner filed a Responsive Declaration on April 20, 2026. It was served on April 20. The court finds this to be late filed, and therefore has not considered it. th

Family Code section 2337 provides that “[i]n a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, the court, upon noticed motion, may sever and grant an early and separate trial on the issue of the dissolution of the status of the marriage apart from other issues.” Fam. Code, § 2337(a). The trial court may separately try the issue of termination of marriage if doing so “is likely to simplify the determination of the other issues.” Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.390(b)(7).

Public policy favors bifurcation of trial on pivotal issues in a dissolution action. In re Marriage of Macfarlane & Lang (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 247, 257; see In re Marriage of Wolfe (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 889, 893–894 (“To the extent bifurcation of issues such as custody, support or the division of community property can assist the parties to achieve settlement of remaining issues, it should be encouraged”). For the issue of marital status, “[c]onsistent with the legislative policy favoring no fault dissolution of marriage, only slight evidence is necessary to obtain bifurcation and resolution of marital status. On the other hand, a spouse opposing bifurcation must present compelling reasons for denial.” Gionis v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 786, 790.