Amanda Alessandro v. Jeremy Alessandro

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 June 18, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

1 & 11. AMANDA ALESSANDRO V. JEREMY ALESSANDRO PFL20200677

This matter was originally set on the morning and afternoon calendars. The hearing on the afternoon calendar is being advanced to join with the 8:30am hearing.

On March 24, 2026, Respondent filed two FL-300 Request for Order (RFO) forms; one seeking joinder and the other seeking attorney’s fees. He filed his Income and Expense Declaration concurrently therewith. There is a Proof of Service for the attorney’s fees RFO showing it was served on May 27th. There is no Proof of Service for the RFO regarding joinder.

Petitioner filed her Income and Expense Declaration and her Responsive Declaration to Request for Order on April 30th. There is no Proof of Service for these documents.

On May 27, 2026, Respondent filed and served a Notice of Motion and Declaration for Joinder. Respondent attached copies of Petitioner’s Income and Expense Declaration and her Responsive Declaration to Request for Order to his Declaration for Joinder therefore the court finds that he has actual knowledge of the contents thereof and he has effectively waived any defect in service.

On June 4th, Petitioner filed and served her Responsive Declaration to Motion for Joinder.

On June 11th, Respondent filed and served two MC-030 declarations.

Respondent is requesting the following: (1) Order Petitioner to pay Respondent’s attorney fees in the amount of $20,000 or whatever amount the court deems just and reasonable under the circumstances; (2) Consider joining Kathy Krjci to contribute to the attorney fee award; (3) Sanctions pursuant to Family Code § 271; (4) Petitioner to produce her tax returns for all yeas since separation and to provide a full accounting of child tax deductions claimed; and (5) Joinder of Thomas Krejci and Kathy B. Krejci, individually and as trustees of the Krejci Family Trust dated September 14, 2017.

Regarding the request for joinder, “[t]he court may order that a person be joined as a party to the proceeding if the court finds that it would be appropriate to determine the particular issue in the proceeding and that the person to be joined as a party is either indispensable for the court to make an order about that issue or is necessary to the enforcement of any judgment rendered on that issue.” Cal. Rule Ct. 5.24(e)(2). Importantly,

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 June 18, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

joinder of a third-party owner is permissive, not mandatory, for purposes of adjudicating the spouses’ rights amongst themselves. See Long v. Long, 88 Cal. App. 2d 544 (1948).

Respondent relies on the doctrine of a constructive trust which is created where one party pays the purchase price for property but title is taken in another’s name. However, he does not provide any documentation that the parties paid the purchase price, including the down payment or taking out the mortgage in their names. Instead, he admits that Thomas Krejci and Kathy B. Krejci actually purchased and owned the property. Petitioner and Respondent simply resided there in exchange for making monthly payments which went toward the mortgage, tax, and insurance.

Respondent argues that the understanding between the parties was that the home would eventually be transferred to the couple. To support this claim he cites a document “previously filed as Exhibit B to Respondent’s Supplemental Declaration,” though he does not provide the court clarity as to which supplemental declaration. The parties are ordered to appear for the hearing to provide further argument regarding the joinder.

The request to join Kathy Krjci in her individual capacity to pay Respondent’s attorney fees is denied.

The request for Section 271 sanctions is denied. An award for attorney’s fees and sanctions may be made pursuant to Family Code section 271 which states, in pertinent part, “...the court may base an award of attorney’s fees and costs on the extent to which the conduct of each party or attorney furthers or frustrates the policy of the law to promote settlement of litigation and, where possible, to reduce the cost of litigation by encouraging cooperation of the parties and attorneys.” Fam. Code § 271(a). However, where a party did not incur attorney’s fees, such as is the case with a pro se litigant, that party cannot collect sanctions pursuant to Section 271. In Re Marriage of Erndt & Terhorst, 59 Cal. App. 5th 898 (2021). Because Respondent is pro per, an award of sanctions pursuant to Family Code § 271 is improper and therefore the request is denied.

Turning to the request for Petitioner’s tax returns and an accounting of the child tax deductions, it appears Respondent is putting the cart before the horse as he has filed what is essentially a motion to compel without first sending discovery requests. As such, the request is denied. However, in family law matters, “...each party has a continuing duty to immediately, fully, and accurately update and augment...” his or her financial disclosures with all material information. Fam. Code § 2100(c). Failure to do so is a violation of that party’s fiduciary duty and may subject that party to sanctions pursuant to Family Code §

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 June 18, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

1101. Petitioner is admonished to ensure she is providing full, complete, and accurate financial disclosures in accordance with her fiduciary duty to Respondent.

Finally, turning to the issue of attorney’s fees, the parties are ordered to appear for the hearing on this issue.

Respondent is directed to prepare the Findings and Orders After Hearing (FOAH); however, this order is effective immediately upon the court’s adoption of the tentative ruling and is not conditioned on the preparation of the FOAH.

TENTATIVE RULING #1 & 11: THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO APPEAR TO PROVIDE ARGUMENT REGARDING THE JOINDER AND THE REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES.

THE REQUEST TO JOIN KATHY KRJCI IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY TO PAY RESPONDENT’S ATTORNEY FEES IS DENIED.

THE REQUEST FOR SECTION 271 SANCTIONS IS DENIED.

THE REQUEST FOR PETITIONER’S TAX RETURNS AND AN ACCOUNTING OF THE CHILD TAX DEDUCTIONS IS DENIED. PETITIONER IS ADMONISHED TO ENSURE SHE IS PROVIDING FULL, COMPLETE, AND ACCURATE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES IN ACCORDANCE WITH HER FIDUCIARY DUTY TO RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE THE FINDINGS AND ORDERS AFTER HEARING (FOAH); HOWEVER, THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON THE COURT’S ADOPTION OF THE TENTATIVE RULING AND IS NOT CONDITIONED ON THE PREPARATION OF THE FOAH.

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) 621-6725 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY PHONE CALL OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07.