DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CECG03977·fresno·Probate·Real Estate Partition
Hearing 4 months agoGRANTED

Vang v. Lychongsu

Motion for Interlocutory Judgment

Hearing date
May 27, 2026
Department
502
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffVang
DefendantLychongsu

Ruling

(48)

Tentative Ruling

Re: Vang v. Lychongsu Superior Court Case No. 25CECG03977

Hearing Date: May 27, 2026 (Dept. 501)

Motion: by Plaintiff for Interlocutory Judgment

Tentative Ruling:

Hearing remains on calendar. The parties are directed to appear on May 27, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 502.

Explanation:

The motion appears to be sufficiently stated. Accordingly, the court intends to grant the motion and enter interlocutory judgment. However, the proposed interlocutory judgment for partition has the following issues. The proposed interlocutory judgment should include: a protective provision against known and unknown parties or owners having an interest in the subject property; a provision on the proposed treatment of outstanding liens or other encumbrances against the subject property; relatedly, a provision addressing how costs of the partition would be paid; and a provision regarding proceeds of a sale to be held in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 873.810.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: KCK on 5/26/2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

6

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