DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25FL0280·eldorado·Civil·Child and Spousal Support
Hearing 27 days agoParties ordered to appear

Caroline Hicks v. Timothy Hicks

Request for Order

Hearing date
Jul 23, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCaroline Hicks
DefendantTimothy Hicks

Ruling

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 July 23, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

13. CAROLINE HICKS V. TIMOTHY HICKS 25FL0280

Respondent filed a Request for Order (RFO) on April 13, 2026, seeking modification of the current child and spousal support orders. Respondent concurrently filed an Income and Expense Declaration. The matter was set for a review hearing on June 18, 2026. On April 16, 2026, Respondent filed a request to reschedule the hearing due to the unavailability of his counsel. The court granted the request and reset the review hearing for July 23, 2026. Proof of Service shows Petitioner was served on May 5, 2026.

Petitioner filed a Responsive Declaration on July 8, 2026. It was served the same day.

Respondent filed an updated Income and Expense Declaration on July 13, 2026. It was served the same day.

Petitioner last filed an Income and Expense Declaration on May 14, 2026. The court is unable to locate a corresponding Proof of Service.

The parties are ordered to appear for the hearing. Petitioner is directed to bring an updated complete Income and Expense Declaration with her.

TENTATIVE RULING #13: THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR FOR THE HEARING. PETITIONER IS DIRECTED TO BRING AN UPDATED COMPLETE INCOME AND EXPENSE DECLARATION WITH HER.

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