CHERYL ASPENLEITER V. RICHARD ASPENLEITER
Request for Order (RFO)
Motion type
Parties
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
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?”