DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
PFL20070201·eldorado·Civil·Spousal Support Modification
Hearing todayMatter dropped from calendar for lack of service.

CHERYL ASPENLEITER V. RICHARD ASPENLEITER

Request for Order (RFO)

Hearing date
Aug 20, 2026
Department
5
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffCheryl Aspenleiter
RespondentRichard Aspenleiter

Ruling

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 August 20, 2026 8:30 AM/1:30 PM

10. CHERYL ASPENLEITER V. RICHARD ASPENLEITER PFL20070201

Respondent filed a Request for Order (RFO) on June 8, 2026, seeking modification of permanent spousal support. Respondent concurrently filed an Income and Expense Declaration. Petitioner was personally served on July 22, 2026; however, it does not appear Petitioner was served with the Income and Expense Declaration or blank FL-320.

Petitioner filed a responsive declaration and an Income and Expense Declaration on July 31, 2026. Petitioner opposes the request to terminate permanent spousal support. Further, Petitioner asserts she was not properly served with Respondent’s Income and Expense Declaration.

The court drops the matter from calendar due to the lack of proper service.

TENTATIVE RULING #10: THE MATTER IS DROPPED FROM CALENDAR DUE TO THE LACK OF PROPER SERVICE.

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