| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Temporary Emergency Order; Order Shortening Time; Distribution of IOLTA Funds; Sanctions pursuant to FC SS 271 & 110
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 ERICA PLAM,) Case Number: FDI-22-796258) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: May 19, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 ERIC HUDSON PLAM,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: JUDGE KATHLEEN DIESMAN) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: TEMPORARY EMERGENCY ORDER, ORDER SHORTENING TIME; 13 SEE #7 OTHER ORDERS REQUESTED; REQUEST FOR ORDER: DISTRIBUTION OF IOLTA 14 FUNDS; SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO FC SS 271 & 110; OTHER ORDERS AND SEE #7 15 TENTATIVE RULING 16 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 17 Court makes the following findings and orders: 18 A.
Procedural History 19 1) The parties are Petitioner Erica Plam (Mother) and Respondent Eric Hudson Plam (Father). 20 2) On 9/5/25, the Court ordered the immediate reappraisal and sale of the San Francisco property 21 located at 1850 10th Avenue in San Francisco, California (against Mother’s request to delay the 22 sale of the home for 10 months), with additional orders regarding the sale process, expenses 23 incurred to effectuate the sale, carrying costs, and sale proceeds. The Court reserved jurisdiction 24 over the sale of the home.
See Findings and Order After Hearing (FOAH) filed 9/5/25. 25 3) On 10/7/25, the Court issued a Final Statement of Decision, which includes disposition of the San 26 Francisco property and the Reno property (located at 712 S. Arlington Avenue Reno, Nevada) 27 and other orders related to property division. The Court ordered, in pertinent part: 28 a. Regarding the San Francisco property, the Court ordered that the net sale proceeds of the 29 home be divided equally between the parties minus Family Code section 2640
1 reimbursements. The Court also stated that expenses related to the sale of the home will 2 be divided equally between the parties. See page 6-7. 3 b. “Epstein credits” are to be paid from the community. (In re Marriage of Jefferies (1991) 4 228Cal.App.3d 548.) See page 8. 5 c. The Court exercised its discretionary authority and awarded $25,000 of Epstein credits to 6 Father for “reimbursement of separate property mortgage payments, property tax 7 payments, and home insurance for the San Francisco home post separation during the 8 time that [Mother] had exclusive use of the residence.”
The Court declined to award 9 Watts charges to either party. See page 9. 10 d. Regarding the Jeep vehicle purchased in 2019, the Court declined to issue Epstein credits 11 or Watts charges. The Court awarded proceeds of a lemon law settlement to Father and 12 ordered Mother to repay Father $25,201, which she received from the lemon law 13 settlement. See page 10. 14 e. Regarding business taxes, the Court ordered Mother to pay Father $6,000 for payment of 15 business taxes. See page 10. 16 4) At the prior 2/17/26 hearing on Father’s 1/7/26 Ex Parte Request for Order, the Court set a review 17 hearing on 5/19/26 stating, “The Court reserves jurisdiction over the sale of the home including 18 division of the sale proceeds consistent with the Court’s 9/5/25 order and further order of the 19 Court.”
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
See FOAH filed 3/3/26. 20 5) At the prior 3/10/26 hearing, the Court disbursed a portion of the net sale proceeds of the San 21 Francisco property to the parties as follows: (a) $44,230.48 to Father off the top at closing and (b) 22 $50,000 to each party. See FOAH filed 4/2/26. 23 6) On 4/14/26, Father filed a Request for Order seeking disbursement of funds from the net sale 24 proceeds of the San Francisco property. 25 7) At the prior 4/23/26 hearing, the Court ordered: (a) Father agreed to buy out Mother’s interest in 26 the Reno property for $170,000; (b) each party shall receive $150,000 of the net sale proceeds of 27 the San Francisco property; (c) Father’s $150,000 distribution shall be held until Mother receives 28 the buyout payment for the Reno property; and (d) the remaining approximately $106,632 in 29 funds from the net sale proceeds of the San Francisco property shall remain in counsel for
1 Mother’s client trust account not be distributed without written agreement or further court order. 2 See 4/23/26 Minute Order. 3 8) On 5/6/26, Mother filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Father’s 4/14/26 Request for 4 Order. 5 9) On 5/12/26, Father filed a Reply Declaration reiterating his requests related to disbursement of 6 funds from the net sale proceeds of the San Francisco property. 7 B. Findings and Order 8 1) It is undisputed that approximately $106,632.64 of the net sale proceeds of the San Francisco 9 property remains in counsel for Mother’s client trust account (i.e., Mother acknowledges this 10 amount in her 5/6/26 Responsive Declaration and Father acknowledges this amount in his 5/12/26 11 Reply Declaration), which the Court acknowledged and ordered not be distributed without written 12 agreement or further court order.
See 4/23/26 Minute Order. 13 2) Based on the pleadings, the Court finds the parties do not agree on how the remaining funds 14 should be distributed; therefore, the Court finds good cause to rule of Father’s requests (set forth 15 in his 4/14/26 Request for Order) and distribute the remaining net sale proceeds of the San 16 Francisco property in accordance with the Final Statement of Decision issued 10/7/25 as follows: 17 3) Father’s request for $25,000 in Epstein credits is GRANTED, the full balance of which shall be 18 paid from the undivided funds.
This leaves $81,632.64 for equal distribution between the parties 19 ($106,632.64 - $25,000 = $81,632.64) or approximately $40,816.32 awarded to each party, 20 subject to the orders below. 21 4) Father’s request for $25,201 in Jeep settlement refund is GRANTED, the full balance of which 22 shall be paid from Mother’s share of the funds. 23 5) Father’s request for $6,000 in business taxes is GRANTED, the full balance of which shall be 24 paid from Mother’s share of the funds. 25 6) Father’s request for $22,115.24 for foreclosure cure reallocation is DENIED as Father was 26 previously reimbursed $44,230.48 from the San Francisco home sale proceeds for curing the 27 mortgage default and preventing foreclosure.
See FOAH filed 4/2/26. 28 7) Father’s request for $2,785.04 in reimbursement for unauthorized home repairs is DENIED as the 29 Court ordered the cost of home repairs divided equally.
1 8) Father’s request for $440.40 in mortgage late fee charges and $3,843.36 in mortgage delay 2 damages is DENIED. 3 9) Father’s request for reimbursement of $1,663.10 for a Bank of America Cashier Check issued in 4 his name only is GRANTED, the full balance of which shall be paid from Mother’s share of the 5 funds. 6 10) Father’s request for $18,784.79 in attorney’s fees sanctions and additional request for $5,000 in 7 fiduciary-duty sanctions is DENIED. 8 11) Counsel for Mother shall distribute the funds in accordance with the orders made herein within 60 9 days of this hearing. 10 12) In so far as there remain issues related to the exchange of personal property; the parties shall 11 follow the process ordered at the prior 4/23/26 hearing.
See 4/23/26 Minute Order. 12 13) Counsel for Mother shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 13 14) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 14 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 15 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 16 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 17 proposed order after hearing directly to the court.
Failure to submit the order after hearing within 18 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 19 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 20
24
28
29