Request for Order (RFO)
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.