Marriage of Bucala CA1/5

Filed 8/25/25 Marriage of Bucala CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re the Marriage of MATTHEW BUCALA and KIM BUCALA.

MATTHEW BUCALA, A169737

Respondent, (Contra Costa County v. Super. Ct. No. D22-03502) KIM BUCALA, Appellant.

Kim Bucala (Wife) appeals from the family court’s prejudgment order directing the sale of the marital home unless Wife buys out the community property share of respondent Matthew Bucala (Husband) within a specified time period. We reverse. BACKGROUND The dissolution petition was filed in August 2022. In August 2023, Husband filed a request for an order directing the sale of the marital residence. Husband averred that, other than his retirement accounts which the parties were in the process of dividing, “the only other noteworthy asset in this case is the marital residence that Wife[] occupies. [Husband] has made attempts individually and by and through counsel to begin the process of selling the marital residence but [Wife] refuses. [Wife], through her

1

counsel, has indicated repeatedly that the sale of the residence will be challenging given [Wife]’s health issues. If the sale is going to be challenging for [Wife], the sooner the parties get started on the process at all, the better. Neither party can afford to buy the other one out of the residence. Presently, [Wife] is in charge of making the mortgage payments which she repeatedly makes on a late basis, putting both parties at risk of credit consequences. [Husband] requests that this court order the sale of the marital residence and order that both parties, and their counsel, cooperate to effect that sale.” Husband submitted no other evidence, did not identify any authority for the requested order, and did not file a memorandum in support of the request. Wife filed an opposition. She submitted a declaration denying that she paid mortgage payments late, and also submitted a portion of her credit report indicating that all payments on a mortgage account had been paid on time. With respect to the possibility of a buyout, Wife averred that the parties had incomplete information and “simply do not know if a buyout will be possible.” Wife also averred that Husband’s preliminary disclosure had been incomplete. Wife’s memorandum in support of her opposition identified Family Code section 21081 as the relevant statute and argued Husband’s request did not comply with its provisions. Husband did not file a reply. The hearing was not reported but Wife prepared a settled statement that was certified by the family court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.137.) According to the settled statement, neither side presented witnesses or documentary evidence at the hearing. The settled statement contains no