Request for Order: Change of Spousal Support; Attorney Fees; Property Control
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 TODD GEORGOPAPADAKOS,) Case Number: FDI-22-796813) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: July 21, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 TANYA GEORGOPAPADAKOS,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: CHANGE OF SPOUSAL OR PARTNER SUPPORT, ATTORNEY FEES 13 AND COSTS, PROPERTY CONTROL, ENFORCEMENT OF STATEMENT OF DECISION; FAMILY 14 CODE 1101/2122 REMEDIES 15 TENTATIVE RULING 16 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 17 Court makes the following findings and orders: 18 A.
Procedural History 19 1) Petitioner Todd Georgopapadakos (Husband) and Respondent Tanya Georgopapadakos (Wife) 20 married on 6/9/1996. The parties have one adult daughter. Their son passed away from cancer in 21 2018 at age 15. 22 2) On 3/26/2025, following a three-afternoon long-cause hearing which occurred on 1/28/2025, 23 1/30/2025, 2/6/2025, the Honorable Judge Costin issued a Final Statement of Decision regarding 24 Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Division of Property; Permanent Spousal Support; and Husband’s 25 Request for Family Code section 271 attorney’s fees sanctions.
Regarding spousal support, the 26 Judge Costin ordered: “The present order for temporary spousal support ($1,637 per month) shall 27 remain in effect until after the parties’ marital status is terminated. After Judgment terminating 28 status is entered, the Court sets long term support at $1,500.00 per month. This amount is, of 29 course, in addition to the asset distributions from the solar businesses set forth above.” Judge
1 Costin also awarded to Husband $50,000 in Family Code section 271 attorney’s fees sanctions, to 2 be paid by Wife at a rate of $500 per month as a deduction from Wife’s monthly spousal support. 3 Judge Costin stated in Paragraph C(1) of the Statement of Decision, “The Court notes it was not 4 tasked at this long cause evidentiary hearing with valuation or division of the entirety of the 5 parties’ other assets and debts... The parties still need to reach agreement or schedule an 6 additional trial for the Court to adjudicate any remaining issues.” 7 3) On 2/19/2026, the Honorable Judge Mori entered a Judgment which incorporated Judge Costin’s 8 Final Statement of Decision, with a reservation of the Court’s jurisdiction “over all issues not 9 addressed in the Final Statement of Decision.” 10 4) Neither Judge Costin’s Statement of Decision, nor the Judgment terminate the parties’ marital 11 status. 12 5) Now on for hearing is Wife’s Request for Order filed 4/15/2026 asking the Court to: 13 a.
Set temporary spousal support of $7,181 per month, based on Husband’s total income 14 from all sources (“at minimum $25,647/month per his own bank declaration”) until the 15 property division is complete 16 b. Remove the $5,000/month earning capacity imputation to Wife. Wife states her present 17 circumstances make the imputation untenable, writing, “I was the primary caregiver for 18 our terminally ill son Xander until his death. I am still grieving. In June 2025, I suffered a 19 stroke and am under active neurology care...
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?”
I am on Medicaid and SNAP. I cannot 20 afford rent in Honolulu or San Francisco.” 21 c. Address the $500/month FC § 271 sanction offset. 22 d. Order Husband to pay Wife’s share of all distributions from GIFT, HPVP, DEP, DEP 23 FIT Energy, DEP/APB JV, and all related entities retroactive to March 26, 2025. 24 e. Order Husband to file an Income and Expense Declaration with Bank Statements. 25 f. Order Husband to file a complete Income and Expense Declaration with all supporting 26 documents within 15 days. 27 g.
Neutral CPA + Records. Order all K-1s, tax returns, bank statements, and distribution 28 records for 2021–2025 produced to a neutral CPA within 30 days. 29
1 h. Order Husband and all entities he controls to cease new capital investments or 2 reinvestments using community funds without prior court approval. 3 i. Set a hearing on valuation of all community business interests. 4 j. Set aside both FL-144s under FC § 2122 (duress, fraud, perjury, failure to disclose). 5 k. Deny request to protect business partners from civil lawsuits. 6 l. Order Husband to pay fees under FC §§ 2030, 2032, and sanctions under FC § 271. 7 m. Order the in-kind transfer of the Waianae solar farm including all land, buildings, solar 8 equipment, and HECO FIT contracts. 9 n.
Calendar for full evidentiary hearing. Award 50% penalty (FC § 1101(g)) or 100% (FC § 10 1101(h)) on all fraudulently concealed assets. 11 o. Retain jurisdiction until Husband has fully complied with the SOD and every order of 12 this Court. 13 p. Other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 14 6) On 4/17/2026, Wife filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 15 7) On 6/1/2026 and 6/5/2026, Husband filed duplicate Responsive Declarations asking the Court to 16 deny all of Wife’s requests.
Husband states, “As set forth in Petitioner’s Reply Declaration, every 17 issue Respondent raises was adjudicated at the trial before Judge Anne Costin, addressed in the 18 Final Statement of Decision filed March 26, 2025, or resolved by the Judgment (FL-180) that 19 Respondent voluntarily signed on October 20, 2025. Respondent presents no new facts 20 warranting modification or reconsideration.” Husband is referring to his Reply Declaration filed 21 on 6/5/2026 for his Request for Order filed 4/10/2026 (which was adjudicated on 6/9/2026).
The 22 Court notes there is no Judgment signed by Wife on 10/20/2025 attached to his Reply Declaration 23 filed 6/5/2026 or his Request for Order filed 4/10/2026. 24 8) According to the Proof of Service filed 6/5/2026, Husband’s Responsive Declaration was served 25 on Wife “electronically through File & ServeXpress” on 6/1/2026. 26 9) On 6/9/2026 (per the Findings and Order After Hearing filed 6/11/2026), Judge Chan denied 27 Husband’s Request for Order filed 4/10/2026 wherein Husband asked the Court to terminate the 28 parties’ marital status and confirm all issues had been resolved.
Judge Chan found that final 29
1 orders regarding the entirety of the parties’ community estate have not yet been made and denied 2 Husband’s requests without prejudice to the Court’s ability to adjudicate this request at trial. 3 10) On 6/9/2026, Husband filed a pleading entitled Notice of Motion and Motion for Reconsideration 4 of Order Dated July 9, 2026, but did not file a Request for Order (FL-300). 5 11) The prior 6/16/2026 hearing on Wife’s 4/15/2026 Request for Order was continued to 7/21/2026 6 by Visiting Judge Cindee Mayfield on the Court’s own motion. 7 12) On 6/26/2026, Husband filed a Supplemental Declaration clarifying that Wife did not sign a 8 Judgment on 10/20/2025.
Rather, “What Respondent signed on October 20, 2025, was the FL- 9 144...In addition to signing the FL-144, Respondent sent an email on October 20, 2025 10 confirming her agreement to the entire Judgment package.” 11 13) On 7/9/2026, Wife filed a Declaration stating that she suffered a stroke in June 2025 and that the 12 imputation of income to her is no longer tenable. Wife requests the following relief: order an in- 13 kind distribution of a 7.57-acre solar farm (including its FIT contracts and equipment) as her 14 share of the community property and, if the Court declines to order the transfer, appoint a 15 receiver, award $7,181 per month in spousal support, and order the receiver to distribute all 16 withheld community distributions, including allegedly undisclosed assets.
Wife argues, Husband 17 has failed to comply with the Statement of Decision by omitting a valuable company (Distributed 18 Energy Partners LLC), filing a Final Declaration of Disclosure stating all issues were resolved 19 despite her objection, and refusing to transfer property as ordered. Wife states Husband has 20 presented inconsistent valuations of the community business interests to different audiences, 21 making his valuations unreliable and demonstrating that the only effective remedy is a court- 22 ordered in-kind transfer of property. 23 14) On 7/17/2026, Husband filed a Declaration stating Wife’s declaration is an untimely opposition 24 under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b).
Husband also states that every issue Wife raises 25 has already been adjudicated. Husband writes, “Petitioner contends that he has fully complied 26 with the Judgment and Statement of Decision with respect to the three remaining community 27 assets—DEP, Hawaii PV Partners, and Green Island FIT. He states that each asset is subject to an 28 executed buyout agreement establishing a payment schedule, copies of which have been provided 29 to both Respondent and the Court, and that all required payments have been made on time, in
1 most instances well within the 30-day period prescribed by the Judgment. Petitioner argues that 2 neither the Judgment nor the Statement of Decision requires any transfer of ownership interests 3 beyond the agreed-upon buyout payments, that the DEP loan is being repaid according to 4 schedule, and that there are no undisclosed assets. Petitioner further argues that Respondent's 5 claim he is in breach of the Statement of Decision by failing to transfer ownership interests 6 fundamentally mischaracterizes the Court's ruling, which provided that Respondent would receive 7 her share through buyout payments rather than direct ownership.
Petitioner also disputes 8 Respondent's assertion that she was induced into signing the FL-144 and judgment package 9 through false promises, arguing that Respondent voluntarily signed the documents after asking 10 questions about the assets, discussing the matter with both Petitioner and the parties' daughter, 11 and receiving answers to her questions. Petitioner maintains that no promises or conditions were 12 made beyond the terms contained in the signed documents and that Respondent has presented no 13 evidence, other than her own assertions, to support her claim that her agreement was induced by 14 any promise or misrepresentation.” 15 B.
Findings and Order 16 1) Although Husband did not properly file a motion for reconsideration as Husband did not file a 17 Request for Order (FL-300) to bring his request, as required by California Rules of Court 18 5.92(A)(1)(B), the Court will nevertheless adjudicate Husband’s motion to reconsider Judge 19 Chan’s June 9, 2026 order. Husband’s motion for reconsideration is denied. The Court does not 20 find that Husband identified new or different facts, circumstances, or law to warrant a 21 reconsideration of Judge Chan’s June 9, 2026 order. 22 2) The Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate Wife’s Request for Order filed 4/15/2026 is reserved for 23 trial. 24 3) The parties are ordered to file and serve an At Issue Memorandum to request a Status Conference 25 Date, at which time the parties will be given a future Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) 26 date.
If the parties do not settle their remaining disputes at the MSC, the parties will be given a 27 future trial date. 28 4) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 29