EGGLESTON VS EGGLESTON

THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13: 338614 - BREWER VS ANDERSON Petitioner's Request for Order re Property Control, etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED.

This matter is post-judgment and therefore proper and valid individual party service is jurisdictional. (Fam. Code, Sec. 215(a).) While Petitioner has filed a Proof of Service asserting that Respondent was personally served, the declarant did not serve Respondent at his address and states that Respondent was served with the moving papers while apparently "walking" at an unspecified locale on Coffee Rd. in Modesto. Respondent did not file a Responsive Declaration or other opposition and the Court requires further details about the validity of service unless Respondent personally appears and admits it.

As for the merits, the Court accepted the parties' Stipulation and Order dated March 30, 2026, by which Respondent relinquishes all right to title or possession of the subject residence but the Court noted on the stipulation that an agreement alone is insufficient and that to change "ownership" a conforming grant or quitclaim deed must be prepared, signed and recorded. The Court cannot grant Petitioner's request if Petitioner is seeking to have the Court overrule what the law requires in order to transfer valid title to real property in the State of California. The parties are welcome to appear and be heard on this.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14: THERE ARE NO TENTATIVES.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Maria Elena Ramos-Ratliff in Department #25: FL-21-000716 - EGGLESTON VS EGGLESTON Petitioner's Request for Order re Expert Fees, etc.--HEARING REQUIRED.

The Court has read and considered the moving and opposing papers, including Petitioner's "reply" to Respondent's Responsive Declaration. While the request to reschedule the hearing by Respondent is untimely, this matter was set on shortened time and for good cause, but the Court invites counsel to be heard on this counter-request and will exercise discretion as to whether to proceed pursuant to the OST or to reschedule.

That said, this is a needs-based request for professional fees and costs, a matter that is not ordinarily eligible for tentative ruling due to the factual findings equivalent to pendente lite spousal support requests that must be made and is therefore posted as such, if at all. In this regard, the Court notes that Petitioner's last I&E on file is from April of this year, and is therefore no longer "current" pursuant to the Local Rules and Family Law Rules of Court. Likewise, the last I&E on file from Respondent dates back to January of last year. The declarations from the parties and their counsel of record make representations regarding the parties' respective financial circumstances, but these are not "evidence" and are not sufficient for the appropriate findings--either way--that the Court is being asked to make.