ALESNA VS ALESNA

or declaration under penalty of perjury that there are new or different facts, circumstances or changes of law that justify revisiting and overturning final rulings, orders or judgments and must further demonstrate that Petitioner could not have discovered or offered these new or different matters had he exercised reasonable diligence to obtain them in time to be presented at the original hearing or trial in the first place. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1008(a), (b).) Petitioner failed to do so here.

Petitioner's remaining asserted reasons for this request are unpersuasive: first, any relationship, whether approved of by Petitioner or not, between the subject child and Petitioner's parents would seem to be their concern, and none of Petitioner's or this Court's; second, the same is true for Petitioner's new wife and any adult children, who are not parties to this case and over whom the Court has no jurisdiction; lastly, whether the subject child is or is not entitled to be a beneficiary of Petitioner's estate is a question for a Probate attorney and not this Court, which may not provide legal advice as a neutral, or else for another Division of this Court in the event of Petitioner's unfortunate demise.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14:

FL-23-003132 - ALESNA VS ALESNA Petitioner's Request for Order re "Clarify," etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED. Proof of mail service on Respondent is on file, but this matter is now post-judgment as of November 4, 2025, and all post-judgment order requests must be individually served on the opposing party. In the case of service by mail, the means that the opposing party's mailing address must be confirmed as current. (Fam. Code, Sec. 215(a); Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.92(f)(2)(B) [Address verification by form FL-334 or equivalent required by section 215].)

Petitioner did not file a form FL-334 and Petitioner's declaration does not otherwise verify the continuing validity of Respondent's mailing address. Respondent did not file a Responsive Declaration or other opposition and before the Court considers the merits of Petitioner's order request, the Court must find that compliance with section 215 has occurred, as that statute is "jurisdictional."

Aside from this, there is no such thing as a "motion to clarify" a final judgment. Once the time for appeal and challenge has expired, the Court's only role with respect to a final judgment relating to property or support is to enforce the judgment "as-is." The Court may not amend, modify, or rewrite the terms of a final judgment based on subsequent developments or the parties' course of conduct or representations to each other about the terms and consequences of the final judgment. (Marriage of Thorne & Raccina (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 492, 499 [once judgment becomes final, court generally loses jurisdiction to modify or alter it]; Marriage of Farrell (1985) 171 CA3d 695, 702 ["Any other rule of law would reduce finality of decision in dissolution cases to an illusion"]; Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. (TRG 2026) Ch. 17-E, Sec. 17:340.)