DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FL002319·marin·FamilyLaw·Spousal Support
Hearing 2 months agoMatter continued.

Rosa Maria Aguilar Ortega and Victorio Garcia Torres

Request for Order – Spousal Support

Hearing date
Jun 11, 2026
Department
B
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Causes of action

Parties

PetitionerRosa Maria Aguilar Ortega
RespondentVictorio Garcia Torres

Ruling

Rosa Maria Aguilar Ortega (Wife) filed a request for order for a change in spousal support on April 16, 2026. Wife states that she suffered a heart attack on July 11, 2025, that affected her ability to work and caused her to incur substantial debts associated with her medical care.

Victorio Garcia Torres (Husband) filed a responsive declaration dated May 8, 2026, opposing the request for order, stating that Wife had failed to comply with the local rules to file an Income and Expense Declaration in support of her request for spousal support.

The Court will continue this matter and directs Wife to comply with Local Rule 7.13. This matter will be continued to _____________________.

As authorized by CRC Rule 5.125, the Court shall prepare the findings and order after hearing.

Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 7.12(B), (C), which provide that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 7.12(C), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.

IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department B. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department B for video conference via a link on the court website. Litigants in the virtual courtroom are required to leave the video screen on and wait for your case to be called.

FL0002319

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence.

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