DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC24611388·sf·Civil·Partition of Real Property
Hearing 10 months agoHearing Required. Parties to prepare a further order of the Court regarding further proceedings under the Partition of Real Property Act.

FREDA A. LEEPER VS. PORTIA L. OSBORNE ET AL

STATUS CONFERENCE RE: PARTITION OF REAL PROPERTY ACT PROCEDURES

Hearing date
Oct 21, 2025
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffFREDA A. LEEPER
DefendantPORTIA L. OSBORNE

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CGC24611388 - October 21, 2025 Hearing date: October 21, 2025 Case number: CGC24611388 Case title: FREDA A. LEEPER VS. PORTIA L. OSBORNE ET AL Case Number: | | CGC24611388 | Case Title: | | FREDA A. LEEPER VS. PORTIA L. OSBORNE ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-10-21 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | STATUS CONFERENCE RE: PARTITION OF REAL PROPERTY ACT PROCEDURES | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for October 21, 2025. Line 5. STATUS CONFERENCE RE: PARTITION OF REAL PROPERTY ACT PROCEDURES Hearing Required.

Parties to prepare a further order of the Court regarding further proceedings under the Partition of Real Property Act. =(501/CFH)

Parties may appear in-person, telephonically or via Zoom (Video - Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849; or Phone Dial in: (669) 254-5252; Webinar ID: 160 560 5023; Password: 172849).

Parties who intend to appear at the hearing must give notice to opposing parties and the court promptly, but no later than 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing unless the tentative ruling has specified that a hearing is required.

Notice of contesting a tentative ruling shall be provided by sending an email to the court to Department501ContestTR@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

A party may not argue at the hearing if the opposing party is not so notified, and the opposing party does not appear. | |

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