DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FDI-26-802517·sf·FamilyLaw·Nullity of Marriage
Hearing 19 days agoDENIED

EUGENE HART JR. v. VERONICA V. BARAHONA

Change of spousal or partner support, property control

Hearing date
Jul 30, 2026
Department
404
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PetitionerEUGENE HART JR.
RespondentVERONICA V. BARAHONA

Ruling

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 EUGENE HART JR.,) Case Number: FDI-26-802517) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: July 30, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 VERONICA V. BARAHONA,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: CHANGE OF SPOUSAL OR PARTNER SUPPORT, PROPERTY 13 CONTROL 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 16 Court makes the following findings and orders: 17 A. Procedural History 18 1) On 1/29/2026, Petitioner Eugene Hart Jr. filed a Petition for Nullity of Marriage requesting an 19 annulment on the basis of bigamy, unsound mind, fraud, force, and physical incapacity.

In the 20 Petition, Petitioner also writes, “We never was personally married.” Petitioner states he and 21 Respondent Veronica Barahona have a child, Oneita (DOB: 6/14/2007; age 19). 22 2) On for hearing is Petitioner’s Request for Order filed 5/28/2026 seeking legal and physical 23 custody orders for Oneita, child support, spousal support, property control (not specified), 24 attorney’s fees and costs “owed,” and “to get the total outcome in entire case, as Judgment and 25 presented for cases that is needed.” 26 3) There is no Proof of Service on file evidencing service of the Petition for Nullity or Petitioner’s 27 Request for Order. 28 4) Respondent has filed no pleadings in this matter to date. 29

1 B. Findings and Order 2 1) Because there is no Proof of Service on file evidencing service of the Petition for Nullity or 3 Petitioner’s Request for Order, Petitioner’s 5/28/2026 Request for Order is denied without 4 prejudice.

5 2) Petitioner is strongly encouraged to seek assistance from the ACCESS Center. Information for 6 contacting the ACCESS Center can be found here: https://sf.courts.ca.gov/access-legal-self-help- 7 center. 8 3) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 9

13

17

21

25

29

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share