Marriage of Ross and Crow CA1/5

Filed 5/21/24 Marriage of Ross and Crow 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur- poses of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re the Marriage of WILLIAM D. ROSS and STEPHEN R. CROW.

WILLIAM D. ROSS, Appellant, A168522

v. STEPHEN R. CROW, (San Francisco City and County Super. Ct. No. FDI-20-794096) Respondent.

William Ross appeals a marital dissolution judgment. He contends the family court abused its discretion in denying his motion to continue trial. He further argues the court erred in finding that he ousted Stephen Crow from their home and in awarding Crow the home’s rental value during the ouster period. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

A.

Several years before their marriage, Ross and Crow purchased a home in San Francisco as joint tenants. They later registered as domestic partners and, eventually, married. After Ross petitioned to dissolve the marriage, in November 2020, they

1

continued to live together in the residence for the next 8 months. In June 2021, Crow moved out of the residence, leaving Ross as the sole occupant.

B.

About three months before trial to divide the couple’s marital assets, the court granted a motion by Ross’s counsel to be relieved. The court later granted Ross’s ex parte application to continue trial to permit his new attorney more time to prepare, and it set a new trial date for March 21, 2023.

On March 10, 2023, Ross filed a second ex parte application to continue the trial. In a supporting declaration, Ross detailed numerous health issues. He explained he “had difficulty” focusing during [a recent] settlement conference “due to poor health” precipitated by this litigation. He “did not realize until [the judicial settlement conference], . . . that dealing with this divorce action would take a large toll on [his] health.” He said that two doctors separately warned him that “undergo[ing] trial” as scheduled imperiled his health. To back up his claims, Ross submitted two doctor’s notes. One (from a psychologist) summarized various symptoms, offered a provisional diagnosis, and recommended continuing treatment, but said nothing about being unavailable for trial; the other (from a medical doctor) consisted of a single sentence stating that, based on Ross’s medical condition, “he should undergo legal trial at a staggered date.”