DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
22FL0424·eldorado·Civil·Judgment Enforcement
Hearing 4 months agoGRANTED. Respondent ordered to endorse check.

Michelle Masters v. Guy Sorber

Request for Order to enforce judgment

Hearing date
Apr 9, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
Plaintiff
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMichelle Masters
RespondentGuy Sorber

Ruling

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 9, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

7. MICHELLE MASTERS V. GUY SORBER 22FL0424

On January 30, 2026, Petitioner filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking to enforce the terms of the judgment. All required documents were served on March 10th.

Respondent has not filed a Responsive Declaration to Request for Order. Where a party fails to timely file opposition papers the court, in its discretion, may treat said failure “as an admission that the motion or other application is meritorious.” El Dorado County, Local Rule 7.10.02(C). Here, the RFO was timely and properly served on Respondent. He had notice of the pending request and chose not file an opposition. As such, the court finds good cause to treat his failure to do so as an admission that the claims made in the RFO are meritorious.

Petitioner asks that Respondent be ordered to endorse the check for the proceeds from the sale of the Tya Lane residence. Should he fail to do so within 7 days of the court’s order, Petitioner asks that the title company be ordered to reissue the check to “The Estate of Michelle Masters.”

Petitioner’s requests are granted. Respondent is ordered to endorse the check for the proceeds from the sale of the Tya Lane residence to “The Estate of Michelle Masters.” Should he fail to do so by April 16, 2026, then Petitioner may have the title company reissue the check and have it made out to “The Estate of Michelle Masters.”

Petitioner is directed to prepare the Findings and Orders After Hearing (FOAH); however, this order is effective immediately upon the court’s adoption of the tentative ruling and is not conditioned on the preparation of the FOAH.

TENTATIVE RULING #7: PETITIONER’S REQUESTS ARE GRANTED. RESPONDENT IS ORDERED TO ENDORSE THE CHECK FOR THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE TYA LANE RESIDENCE TO “THE ESTATE OF MICHELLE MASTERS.” SHOULD HE FAIL TO DO SO BY APRIL 16, 2026, THEN PETITIONER MAY HAVE THE TITLE COMPANY REISSUE THE CHECK AND HAVE IT MADE OUT TO “THE ESTATE OF MICHELLE MASTERS.”

PETITIONER IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE THE FINDINGS AND ORDERS AFTER HEARING (FOAH); HOWEVER THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON THE COURT’S ADOPTION OF THE TENTATIVE RULING AND IS NOT CONDITIONED ON THE PREPARATION OF THE FOAH.

NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 April 9, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

BY PHONE CALL TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6725 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY PHONE CALL OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07.

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