DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FDI-22-796458·sf·FamilyLaw·Dissolution of Marriage
Hearing in 3 daysGRANTED. Court reserves jurisdiction on fees.

Kirt Jorgenson v. Elizabeth Pouso-Jorgenson

Request for Order re Attorney Fees and Costs, Sale of SF Residence

Hearing date
Sep 8, 2026
Department
403
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Motion for Attorney Fees rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$5,000$9,000$2.4M

Parties

PetitionerKirt Jorgenson
RespondentElizabeth Pouso-Jorgenson

Ruling

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 KIRT JORGENSON,) Case Number: FDI-22-796458) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: September 8, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 ELIZABETH POUSO-JORGENSON,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: JPT JUDITH E. HARDING) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER RE ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS, SALE OF SF RESIDENCE 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) The parties are Petitioner Kirt Jorgenson and Respondent Elizabeth Pouso-Jorgenson. 18 2) On 5/13/22, Petitioner filed a Petitioner for Dissolution indicating the date of marriage is 6/26/99 19 and date of separation is 1/28/22 for a marriage of 22 years and 6 months. 20 3) On 11/14/23, the Court entered Status Only Judgment. 21 4) On 7/14/26, Petitioner filed a Request for Order seeking to compel the sale of the marital 22 residence located at 1926 Pine Street, San Francisco, CA pursuant to Family Code section 2108 23 and $5,000 in Family Code section 271 attorney’s fees and costs.

Petitioner asserts he has paid all 24 carrying costs on the residence (approximately $9,000 monthly) since separation, which he can 25 no longer afford because he lost his job in March of 2025 Petitioner alleges that Respondent 26 previously agreed to the sale of the home and then refused. Petitioner states the marital residence 27 is at risk of foreclosure and claims the parties’ have approximately $2.4M in equity. Petitioner 28 believes that Respondent can neither afford to buy out Petitioner’s interest in the marital 29 residence nor sustain the monthly carrying costs on her income.

Petitioner filed a Memorandum

1 of Points and Authorities and declaration of counsel in support of his Request for Order (both 2 pleadings are file dated 6/30/26). 3 5) On 7/15/26, Petitioner filed a Proof of Electronic Service indicating counsel for Respondent was 4 served with Petitioner’s Request for Order and supportive pleadings by email on 7/15/26. 5 6) On 8/5/26, Petitioner filed an Income and Expense Declaration. 6 7) On 8/5/26, Petitioner filed a Proof of Electronic Service indicating counsel for Respondent was 7 served with Petitioner’s Income and Expense Declaration by email on 8/5/26. 8 8) Respondent did not file a Responsive Declaration. 9 B.

Findings and Order 10 1) Family Code section 2108 provides the Court’s authority “to order the liquidation of community 11 or quasi-community assets to avoid unreasonable market or investment risks” upon a showing of 12 good cause; however, the Court is prohibited from doing so unless “the appropriate declaration of 13 disclosure has been served by the moving party.” 14 2) Petitioner filed a Declaration Regarding Service of Declaration of Disclosure and Income and 15 Expense Declaration (form FL-141) as mandated by Family Code section 2104 on 3/9/23. 16 Therefore, the Court finds the requirement for the moving party to serve the appropriate 17 disclosures under Family Code Section 2108 has been met. 18 3) The Court further finds Petitioner made a showing of good cause given his unrefuted assertion 19 that the marital residence is at risk of foreclosure because he can no longer afford to pay the 20 significant carrying costs on the property since losing his job in March of 2025.

As such, 21 Petitioner’s unopposed request is GRANTED as follows: 22 4) The Court will provide Respondent with the opportunity to purchase Petitioner’s interest in the 23 marital residence. Respondent shall have until 10/8/26 to arrange the financing necessary to 24 purchase Respondent’s interest in the marital residence. If she is unable to do so, the property will 25 be sold. 26 5) If the parties proceed to sale of the marital residence, the following orders shall take effect: 27 6) Petitioner shall provide Respondent with the name of three proposed real estate agents by 28 10/8/26.

Respondent shall then select a real estate agent from this list by 10/15/26. 29

1 7) Both parties shall fully and timely cooperate with all reasonable and necessary actions required to 2 prepare and list the marital residence for sale, including, but not limited to: 3 a. Following all reasonable recommendations of the agent with respect to repairs and 4 readying the martial residence for sale with costs shared equally. 5 b. Signing the listing agreement for the martial residence forthwith. 6 c. Listing the martial residence for sale at the listing price recommended by the agent. 7 8) Respondent shall vacate the marital residence no later than 11/8/26. 8 9) The parties may modify any deadlines set forth above through mutual written agreement signed 9 by both parties. 10 10) After sale, the net proceeds from the sale of the residence shall be placed in an interest-bearing 11 account in both parties’ names after the payment of commissions, fees, taxes, and other closing 12 costs. 13 11) The Court reserves jurisdiction to issue additional orders to effectuate the sale of the marital 14 residence and divide the proceeds therefrom. 15 12) The Court reserves jurisdiction over Petitioner’s request for $5,000 in Family Code section 271 16 sanctions. 17 13) Counsel for Petitioner shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 18 14) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 19 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 20 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 21 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 22 proposed order after hearing directly to the court.

Failure to submit the order after hearing within 23 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 24 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 25

29

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