JONES VS HILL

Accordingly, the Court is inclined to deny the Petitioner's RFO without prejudice.

Petitioner asks the Court to continue the hearing in order to rectify the service and notice defects but, as this request is made in Petitioner's Reply, Respondent and/or Respondent's counsel is entitled to be heard on this request and are invited to appear to do so.

That said, continuing the hearing on Respondent's RFO to a later date may be a moot point depending on the Court's decision on Petitioner's RFO re forum non conveniens.

Moreover, Petitioner's sole reliance on Code of Civil Procedure section 397.5 may be inapt given the existing child support order and registration thereof, since DCSS involvement triggers the discretionary but limited authority to transfer consistent with Family Code section 4251 and 17000 et seq. (dealing with IV-D cases).

Lastly, if the venue motion or transfer request is not denied, whether with or without prejudice, at this hearing, then with the exception of emergency orders involving child safety, etc., the entire case is ordinarily subject to stay, and that would include the Court's pending decision on Respondent's RFO re forum non conveniens, which would leave the matter in procedural limbo. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 397(e); Thompson v. Thames (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1303-1304; Pickwick Stages System v. Superior Court (1934) 138 Cal.App. 448, 449.)

FL-25-002362 - JONES VS HILL Petitioner's Request for Order re Immediate Sale, etc.-- DENIED, without prejudice.

Based on Petitioner's Declaration and Respondent's Responsive Declaration, there is no evidence that the lender of the subject residence has declared a default or initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings.

Short of a showing that the subject asset is subject to unreasonable market risk of loss, the Court has no authority to order a pendente lite sale of a community property asset over objection. (Fam. Code, Sec. 2108.) Petitioner is represented and no such authority has been provided.

While the parties are free to dispose of their community property by stipulation, the Court does not characterize, value and divide the marital estate before trial, nor piece-meal, unless a properly noticed motion is made and granted for good cause to bifurcate the asset and set an early and separate trial on it.