JOHN D EVELAND v. WILLIAM T BALDWIN JR

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

5) 6 JOHN D EVELAND,) Case Number: FDI-25-802148) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: June 2, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 WILLIAM T BALDWIN JR,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: TEMPORARY EMERGENCY ORDER, PROPERTY CONTROL, HOME 13 TO BE LISTED FOR SALE AND THE PROCEEDS HELD IN TRUST 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 16 Court makes the following findings and orders: 17 A.

Procedural History 18 1) The parties are Petitioner John D. Eveland and Respondent William T. Baldwin Jr. 19 2) On 11/4/25, Petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution of Domestic Partnership. 20 3) On 3/2/26, Petitioner field a Proof of Service of Summons indicating personal service was 21 effectuated on 1/2/26. 22 4) Respondent did not file a Response. 23 5) On 5/1/26, Petitioner filed an ex parte Request for Order seeking to compel the sale of the real 24 property located at 877 Montecito Drive, Los Angeles, CA 94131 (the home).

Petitioner asserts 25 that he purchased the home prior to the parties becoming registered domestic partners and paid 26 the mortgage in full until 2020 when the parties added Respondent to the title and began jointly 27 paying the mortgage. Petitioner states he had to move out of the home due to his poor health 28 condition, which requires he reside in a supportive care home in San Francisco. Petitioner claims 29 that Respondent continues to reside in the home and refuses to sell it; however, funds to pay the

1 mortgage and carrying costs are depleted. Petitioner further asserts that he received notice the 2 mortgage has not been paid since November of 2025 and the home is at risk of foreclosure and 3 waste (hoarding and rodent infestation). Petitioner states both parties are of advanced age (early 4 80s) and cannot care for the home. Petitioner requests the Court order Respondent to vacate the 5 home within 30 days and immediately list the home for sale with Petitioner authorized to select 6 the relator. 7 6) On 5/1/26, the Court denied Petitioner’s request for emergency relief and set the matter on 8 shortened time on 6/2/26.

The Court made a finding that the ex parte Request for Order was 9 served on Respondent. 10 7) On 5/28/26, Petitioner field a Proof of Service indicating the ex parte Request for Order was 11 served on Respondent by personal service on 5/22/26. 12 8) Respondent did not file a Responsive Declaration. 13 B. Findings and Order 14 1) Family Code section 2108 provides the Court’s authority “to order the liquidation of community 15 or quasi-community assets to avoid unreasonable market or investment risks” upon a showing of 16 good cause; however, the Court is prohibited from doing so unless “the appropriate declaration of 17 disclosure has been served by the moving party.” 18 2) The Court finds Petitioner made a showing of good cause; however, Petitioner did not file a 19 Declaration Regarding Service of Declaration of Disclosure and Income and Expense Declaration 20 (form FL-141) as mandated by Family Code section 2104.