DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
FL 2101418·marin·FamilyLaw·Spousal Support
Hearing about 2 months agoCONTINUED. Wife failed to comply with address verification requirements.

Kirsten Tolstrup v. Massoud Akhtari

Request for Order – Spousal Support

Hearing date
Jun 26, 2026
Department
E
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Aug 14, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$5,000

Parties

PetitionerKirsten Tolstrup
RespondentMassoud Akhtari

Ruling

This matter is set for hearing on Petitioner/Wife’s 4/6/2026 Request for Order (“RFO”) to terminate the spousal support she pays Respondent/Husband of $5,000/month.

The Court notes that Wife has not complied with Marin County Local Rule, Family 7.8(F), which requires the parties to submit an Address Verification Declaration (Local Form FL070). Without the Address Verification, the Court has no way of knowing if Respondent/Husband was properly served. Therefore, the Court orders as follows:

1. Wife shall comply with Marin County Local Rule, Family 7.8(F) forthwith.

2. The matter is continued for hearing to 8/14/2026 at 9:00 am in Department E to provide Wife with sufficient time to confirm Husband’s address, serve him, and to provide Husband sufficient time to respond.

SO ORDERED.

The Court will prepare the order.

Any party who disagrees with the Court's tentative ruling and wishes to have oral argument must notify the Court at (415) 444-7046 and opposing counsel (or if the opposing party is selfrepresented, notice must be given directly to the opposing party) of their intent to appear at the hearing for oral argument by 4:00 pm on the court day before the hearing, as required by Marin County Superior Court Family Law Local Rules 7.12(B) and (C). Notice may be given by telephone or in person. Absent proper notice, no oral argument will be permitted. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.

Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, persons who requested oral argument must appear for the hearing in person or remotely via Zoom, in accordance with the Comi website guidelines. If appearing remotely via Zoom (video or telephone), you are responsible for ensuring you have adequate connectivity; the Court may proceed in a party’s absence if technical issues arise. Proper Zoom etiquette and courtroom decorum are required, and failure to comply may result in the hearing being halted and an order to appear in person being made.

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