Enforcement of Judgment
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 VAN-CHI WANG,) Case Number: FDI-21-794472) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: April 28, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 LASSANNA KARRIM,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: ENFORCEMENT OF 09-20-2023 JUDGMENT OF DISSOLUTION 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) The parties are Petitioner Van-Chi Wang and Respondent Lassanna Karrim. 18 2) On 11/3/25, Respondent filed a Request for Order seeking enforcement of the parties 9/20/23 19 judgment and additional orders.
Respondent requests: 20 a. The Court enter the Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) prepared by the 21 Moon, Schwartz, and Madden (MSM) once they are updated to reflect the current contact 22 information and status of legal representation. Respondent seeks appointment of the clerk 23 of court as eilsor if either party fails to timely sign the updated QDROs. Respondent also 24 requests reimbursement for costs incurred to effectuate the QDROs. 25 b. Enforcement of the 9/20/23 judgment provision related to disposition of furniture, 26 keepsakes, and personal effects that remain outstanding. 27 c.
An order for legal interest of $312.66 payable to Respondent for net base spousal support 28 Petitioner failed to pay from 3/1/25 – 9/24/25. 29 d. $3,533.03 in sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271.
1 e. A review hearing in approximately 60 days. 2 3) On 11/19/25, the matter was continued from 12/30/25 to 2/10/26 on the Court’s own motion. 3 4) On 2/5/26, Petitioner filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Respondent’s Request for 4 Order. Petitioner asserts that the QDROs were already submitted to the Court for approval. 5 Petitioner requests the Court continue the 2/17/26 hearing to permit additional time for parties to 6 resolve the matter without the Court’s assistance. 7 5) On 2/6/26, Respondent filed a Reply Declaration confirming the QDROs were submitted to the 8 Court for approval, asserting that the remaining issues are still unresolved, and requesting 9 $5,676.08 in Family Code section 271 sanctions.
Respondent attached as Exhibit E an updated 10 calculation for the legal interest owed on unpaid spousal support and Exhibit F a table detailing 11 the costs she incurred for judgment enforcement. Respondent also requests the Court review and 12 approve an Earnings Assignment Order pursuant to an attached FL-435. 13 6) At the prior 2/17/26 hearing, the Court ordered as follows: 14 a. The Court confirms receipt of the proposed QDROS, which are currently pending judicial 15 review. 16 b. The Court also confirms that per the 9/20/23 judgment terms, the parties shall exchange 17 lists of any remaining furniture and keepsakes that need to be divided; any items in 18 dispute will be divided by binding arbitration without attorneys. 19 c.
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?”
The Court finds good cause to continue the matter to 4/28/26 at 9:00 AM in Dept. 403 to 20 permit the parties additional time to attempt to resolve the remaining issues without the 21 Court’s assistance. 22 d. The parties shall meet and confer in advance of the 4/28/26 hearing date. 23 e. At the 4/28/26 hearing date, the Court is inclined to grant Respondent’s request for legal 24 interest on the net base spousal support Petitioner failed to pay from 3/1/25 – 9/24/25 and 25 grant Respondent some amount – though not the full amount – of Family Code section 26 271 sanctions. 27 f.
Both parties shall file update declarations at least 10 days in advance of the 4/28/26 28 hearing informing the Court of any outstanding issues. 29
1 g. Respondent’s request for the Court to review and approve an Earnings Assignment Order 2 pursuant to the attached FL-435 is beyond the scope of the hearing as it was first raised in 3 Respondent’s 2/6/26 Reply Declaration. 4 7) On 3/9/26, the parties filed 11 QDROs regarding the division of retirement and pension plans. 5 8) On 4/20/26, Respondent filed an update declaration. Respondent states that the QDROs were 6 approved by the Court on 3/9/26 and mailed to the plan administrators on 4/15/26.
Respondent 7 requests a review hearing in 45 days to ensure no further action is required to effectuate the 8 QDROs (i.e., additional forms or information required by the respective IRA custodians to 9 facilitate IRA transfers per the QDROs). Respondent states that the division and disposition of 10 personal property remains outstanding. Respondent asserts that Petitioner owes $318.43 in 11 interest accrued on unpaid spousal support though confirms that Petitioner paid base spousal 12 support. Respondent attached as Exhibit E an updated calculation for the legal interest owed on 13 unpaid spousal support.
Respondent seeks $7,590.32 in sanctions against Petitioner for costs 14 incurred to effectuate the QDROs and unnecessary delay. 15 9) On 4/20/26, counsel for Petitioner filed an update declaration asserting that all 11 QDROs were 16 dispatched to their respective plans. It is Petitioner’s position that Respondent’s fee request 17 should be denied as Petitioner incurred thousands of dollars in fees and costs to complete the 18 QDROs since Respondent is self-represented and therefore Petitioner’s attorney completed the 19 work.
Petitioner states that while the spousal support Petitioner owed Respondent was delayed, 20 Respondent owed Petitioner child support, which was also delayed. Petitioner believes that the 21 disentitlement doctrine should prevent Respondent from relief. 22 B. Findings and Order 23 1) Respondent’s request for a review hearing is DENIED as the Court finds it is undisputed that all 24 11 QDROs were dispatched to their respective plans. Should any further action be required by 25 either party to effectuate the QDROs (i.e., additional forms or information required by the 26 respective IRA custodians to facilitate IRA transfers per the QDROs), the parties shall take such 27 action within 72 hours of notice. 28
1 2) The Court reaffirms that per the 9/20/23 judgment terms, the parties shall exchange lists of any 2 remaining furniture and keepsakes that need to be divided; any items in dispute will be divided by 3 binding arbitration without attorneys. 4 3) Respondent’s request for legal interest on the net base spousal support Petitioner failed to pay 5 from 3/1/25 – 9/24/25 is DENIED as Petitioner submitted new information to the Court that 6 Respondent failed to timely pay Petitioner child support owed during this period. The Court finds 7 an award of legal interest to Respondent would be inequitable for that reason. 8 4) The Court further finds that both parties incurred additional fees and costs to effectuate the 9 QDROs. As such, all requests for Family Code section 271 sanctions are DENIED. 10 5) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 11
15
19
23
27
29