SINGH VS KAUR

FL-24-000788 - SINGH VS KAUR Petitioner's Request for Order re "Bifurcate Sep. Trial," etc., sic-- HEARING REQUIRED.

Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration and opposes the request for bifurcation and early termination of marital status because of his allegation that Petitioner is "hiding assets" and because of the proximity of the trial date in this case, presently scheduled for December 1, 2026.

As to the former, as Petitioner's accompanying brief correctly notes, public policy favors early termination of marital status and the moving party prevails with a modicum of evidence favoring status termination whereas the opposing party bears the burden of demonstrating "compelling" evidence of actual prejudice. (Fam. Code, Sec.2337; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.390; Gionis v. Superior Court (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 786, 788-790; Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. (TRG 2026) Ch. 11-D, Sec. 11:479.1 et seq..) Respondent's concerns may be adequately addressed by the protective conditions that Petitioner has proffered, or any that Respondent requests and that the Court approves.

As to the latter, however, Petitioner's order request does not offer any specific factual or legal basis as the grounds for seeking pendente lite termination of marital status and, even with favorable public policy and case law, the moving party must nevertheless proffer some showing of good cause for the request, such as simplifying characterization of marital property disputes, a desire or pending engagement to remarry, facilitating global settlement, etc. With a settlement conference set for October 16, 2026, and a December trial date, it is not clear to the Court how any of these typical grounds for the request would apply.

Counsel are directed to meet and confer in good faith in an effort to resolve this dispute in light of this tentative ruling and any documentary evidence intended to be relied upon at the hearing must be exchanged. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 5.98(a), (b).)

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge J. Richard Distaso in Department #13: FL-25-000721 - BRANSON VS BRANSON Respondent's Request for Order re Bifurcation of Marital Status-- HEARING REQUIRED.

The following are the tentative ruling cases calendared before Judge Sarah Birmingham in Department #14: FL-24-002053 - AMEZCUA VS AMEZCUA Respondent's Request for Order re "QDRO/401K benefits," etc.-- HEARING REQUIRED.

Proof of personal service of Petitioner is on file and reflects presumptively valid and timely notice and service, in compliance with the Rules of Court and Family Code section 215. No Responsive Declaration or other opposition has been filed. Petitioner has recently retained limited scope counsel for the purpose of joining the subject plan and preparation of the QDRO, but the scope does not include representation at any contested hearings other than any involving the pension plan.

This is a dissolution action involving a long-term marriage in which a final judgment incorporating the parties Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) was entered on October 2, 2025. The Judgment/MSA provides that Petitioner shall receive a total, fixed sum of $350,000.00 as and for Petitioner's community interest in Respondent's retirement plan. The Judgment/MSA further provided that the plan, if necessary, was to be divided by QDRO and that the Court reserved jurisdiction over the matter until finalized. (Judgment/MSA, 10/2/26, Attachment, p. 5, ln. 9-16.)

Respondent seeks an order to "make [Petitioner] for any taxes/penalties charged for any withdrawal on their (sic) portion of benefits." There are no express terms of the Judgment/MSA that provide for the order Respondent seeks. The Court does not have the authority to alter or modify the terms of a final judgment incorporating an MSA. Put differently, the Court may not "rewrite" or add provisions that were not part of the final judgment/ MSA after the fact. (Marriage of Thorne & Raccina (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 492, 499 [once judgment becomes final, court generally loses jurisdiction to modify or alter it]; Marriage of Nassimi (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 667, 691-692 [property settlement merged into disso judgment becomes final determination of parties' property rights "under doctrine of res judicata"]; Marriage of Bowen (2001) 91 CA4th 1291, 1300 [reservation of jurisdiction over property issues, including pension plans, does not empower the trial court to rewrite or modify the judgment, only