Tammy Evans v. Cody Evans

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 4 APRIL 24, 2026 9:30 a.m.

1. TAMMY EVANS v. CODY EVANS 23FL0016

This ma er is before the court on Pe oner’s Request for Order (“RFO”), filed March 11, 2026. The RFO requests that the court make the following orders: (1) authorize Pe oner “to nego ate se lement/payoff with Police Credit Union”; (2) that “Respondent must pay all Pe oner’s a orney’s fees or provide access to employer legal benefits (which may not be used against her)”; and (3) authorize Pe oner “to seek pre-arraignment legal consulta on (including Public Defender if eligible).” Pe oner’s RFO is denied in its en rety.

With regard to Police Credit Union, Exhibit B to the RFO demonstrates that Pe oner was already discussing a poten al payoff of the HELOC (“loan”) with Police Credit Union (“PCU”) without the need for court interven on. A representa ve with PCU told Pe oner that because she is not technically on the loan they could not provide her with specific informa on about the status of the loan. They also told her they could no longer offer payment plan op ons, but that Pe oner had the op on of applying for a loan elsewhere to pay off the loan. Moreover, it appears the issue is moot as the foreclosure sale to pay off the loan occurred on December 16, 2025. The RFO as to the request for authoriza on to nego ate a se lement or payoff with Police Credit Union is denied.

With regard to Pe oner’s request for a orney fees, she appears to be reques ng financial assistance from Respondent to obtain legal assistance regarding “the financial issues affec ng the marital residence and related proceedings.” Pe oner’s RFO does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 5.527, subdivision (b). The RFO as to a orney fees is denied without prejudice.

Lastly, with regard to Pe oner’s request that she be authorized to seek prearraignment legal consulta on, including with the Public Defender if eligible, the request is denied as moot. Counsel was appointed to represent Pe oner at her arraignment on April 3, 2026.

TENTATIVE RULING #1: PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR ORDER, FILED MARCH 11, 2026, IS DENIED.

NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY PHONE CALL TO THE COURT AT (530) 573-3042 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. (CAL. RULES OF CT., RULE 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS v. SUPERIOR COURT (1999) 19 CAL.4TH 1232.) NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES