DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FL 1601598·marin·FamilyLaw·Family Law
Hearing about 2 months agoCONTINUED

Lori Bonnici v. Jerrold Bonnici

Status Only Hearing

Hearing date
Jul 17, 2026
Department
E
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Aug 28, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerLori Bonnici
RespondentJerrold Bonnici

Attorneys

Michael Plockifor Petitioner

Ruling

This matter is on calendar for review hearing. On 7/9/2026 Counsel for Petitioner/Wife, Michael Plocki, Esq., filed a Declaration of Petitioner’s Counsel Re: Review Hearing. Mr. Plocki advises that on 5/18/2026 Alex Spaete, CPA, the Evidence Code §730 expert retained to value Showplant Nurseries, Inc., issued his Business Valuation Analysis, and on 6/22/2026 issued his Net Asset value analyses for 2016 and 2021. Petitioner has since discovered additional assets – four accounts - not previously disclosed and is awaiting information and documentation relating thereto. In addition, Petitioner is still awaiting production of the general ledgers for Showplant Nurseries for Mr. Spaete’s review.

Per Counsel’s agreement, this matter is continued for review update to 8/28/2026 at 9:00 am in Department E.

SO ORDERED.

The Court will prepare the order.

Any party who disagrees with the Court's tentative ruling and wishes to have oral argument must notify the Court at (415) 444-7046 and opposing counsel (or if the opposing party is selfrepresented, notice must be given directly to the opposing party) of their intent to appear at the hearing for oral argument by 4:00 pm on the court day before the hearing, as required by Marin County Superior Court Family Law Local Rules 7.12(B) and (C). Notice may be given by telephone or in person. Absent proper notice, no oral argument will be permitted. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, persons who requested oral argument must appear for the hearing in person or remotely via Zoom, in accordance with the Comi website guidelines. If appearing remotely via Zoom (video or telephone), you are responsible for ensuring you have adequate connectivity; the Court may proceed in a party’s absence if technical issues arise.

Proper Zoom etiquette and courtroom decorum are required, and failure to comply may result in the hearing being halted and an order to appear in person being made.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share