Request for Order — Property Control; Motion for Sanctions
This matter is set for hearing on Respondent/Husband’s 3/6/2026 Request for Order (“RFO”) re: Property Control. Together with the RFO, Respondent filed a Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Declaration of Ehsan Karimian. On 5/7/2025, Husband filed a Reply Declaration. To the extent that the Reply Declaration makes new arguments/requests for relief, they are improper and have been disregarded. In reliance on Family Code §2108, Respondent asks the Court to order an interim, pre-judgment release of $995,000 to him from liquid community funds held in a joint bank account. Husband argues that this is necessary to equalize the parties’ personal exposure from community SBA loans.
On 5/4/2026, in opposition to Respondent’s request Petitioner filed a Responsive Declaration, Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Declaration of Mona Mahmoodi, Declaration of Fiona Huang, Esq. and Petitioner’s Income & Expense Declaration. She requests that Husband’s RFO be denied in its entirety and Husband pay to Wife sanctions in the amount of $11,100 pursuant to Family Code § 271 within 7 calendar days of the hearing on this matter. Wife argues that the parties stipulated to pay a number of community property debts, only two of which are SBA loans, from community property funds held in the parties’ joint Bank of America account.
The Stipulation provides the Court reserves jurisdiction over all payments and reimbursements to be equalized as part of the parties’ entire community estate; and as a result, there is no reason to make the requested, unequal award of community property funds totaling $995,000 at this time. Moreover, Wife notes that Husband has already received advances of $4.2 million within the last six months, so he should have more than sufficient funds to meet his living expenses.
Having reviewed and considered the parties’ written submissions, the Court finds that there is no basis under Family Code §§2040, 2550 or 2108 to make an interim, unequal award to Husband of $995,000 in community funds. Moreover, given the clarity of the law on the issue of community property division, the Court finds Husband’s RFO to be frivolous and frustrates the policy of the law to reduce, where possible, the cost of litigation. Based on the distributions Husband has already received, as well as his monthly income as set forth in his 12/5/2025
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?”
Income & Expense Declaration, the Court finds that Husband has or is reasonably likely to have the ability to pay Wife’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with this proceeding. Therefore, the Court orders as follows:
1. Husband’s request for an interim, pre-judgment release of $995,000 from community funds held in the parties’ joint Bank of America account is denied in its entirety.
2. Husband shall pay to Wife, according to proof, Wife’s reasonable and necessary fees and costs incurred in responding to Husband’s RFO.
a. Counsel for Wife is ordered to serve and lodge with the court by 7/2/2026 billing statements (with only privileged information redacted) detailing work performed and fees incurred in responding to the instant RFO so that the Court can assess the necessity and reasonableness of such fees and costs.
3. This matter is continued to 7/10/2026 on the issue of the amount of sanctions.
SO ORDERED.
Counsel for Wife to prepare the order.
Any party who disagrees with the Court's tentative ruling and wishes to have oral argument must notify the Court at (415) 444-7046 and opposing counsel (or if the opposing party is self- represented, notice must be given directly to the opposing party) of their intent to appear at the hearing for oral argument by 4:00 pm on the court day before the hearing, as required by Marin County Superior Court Family Law Local Rules 7.12(B) and (C). Notice may be given by telephone or in person. Absent proper notice, no oral argument will be permitted. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.
Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, persons who requested oral argument must appear for the hearing in person or remotely via Zoom, in accordance with the Court website guidelines. If appearing remotely via Zoom (video or telephone), you are responsible for ensuring you have adequate connectivity; the Court may proceed in a party’s absence if technical issues arise. Proper Zoom etiquette and courtroom decorum are required, and failure to comply may result in the hearing being halted and an order to appear in person being made.