Request for Order for accounting and turnover of community assets
SUPERIOR COURT OF MARIN COUNTY OF MARIN DATE: 7/9/26 TIME: 9:00 A.M. DEPT: B CASE NO: FL 095748
PRESIDING: HON. JAMES M. SCHURZ
REPORTER: CLERK: A. URTON
PETITIONER: MILES ARCHER WOODLIEF
and
RESPONDENT: JENNIFER LYNN WOODLIEF
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: REQUEST FOR ORDER – COMMUNITY ASSETS
This matter is before the Court following Petitioner/Husband’s May 22, 2026, Request for Order (RFO) for accounting and turnover of community assets.
Husband request for Respondent/Wife to be ordered to account for all proceeds she has received in connection with her books "Ski to Die" and "A Wall of White," including without limitation book royalties, book option payments, purchase price (if movie goes to production), contingent compensation, and back-end royalties from film, (collectively "Proceeds"), and specifically including any such Proceeds from Convergence Entertainment and Martin Scorsese, and immediately turnover to Movant his 50% community interest in such Proceeds.
On June 26, 2026, Wife filed a Responsive Declaration. Wife states that Husband’s argument is premature as she states that she has received no money to provide accounting for. Wife states that she gave an option for her book for free in 2025. Wife request that Court order Petitioner to pay her one-half of the value of the Truckee residence (minus the mortgage) or order the home sold and she be paid her share if the court is to entertain Husband’s request.
Judgment on the parties’ dissolution was entered on December 17, 2009. There is no evidence that proceeds from writing, if indeed there are any, are community property that Husband is entitled to. The Judgment and the attachment to the Judgment make no mention of royalties or of community assets. Further, Husband’s Petition of Dissolution states that there are no community or quasi community assets subject to disposition. The Judgment lists only retirement assets for disposition. Therefore, there is no basis in the Judgment for addressing supposed assets.
Here, Husband has not presented any actual evidence that proceeds have been received that would qualify as a community asset. Moreover, Husband has not provided sufficient evidence
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
that there is a reasonable basis for ordering an accounting in this matter. Wife has indicated that she has received no money. Husband has not provided any contrary evidence suggesting that there are unacknowledged community assets that may be subject to division.
Accordingly, Husband’s request for accounting and turnover of community assets is denied.
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.
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.