Request for Order - Spousal Support; Request for attorney fees; Request for exclusive use of marital home
This matter is before the Court on Respondent/Wife’s May 28, 2026, Request for Order (RFO) equesting pendente lite spousal support, property control, $10,000 in attorney fees, and exclusive use of the marital home in Novato, CA. The parties have one child, Damian, (DOB 5/13/22).
Pendente Lite Spousal support Wife’s May 28, 2026, Income and Expense Declaration (IED) reported $1,932 in income and $2,024 in expenses.
Husband’s June 24, 2026, IED reported $6,971 in income from wages last month and $9,784 in expenses, $1,549 in work-related childcare expenses and $339 for the child’s health care expenses not covered by insurance. Wife alleges that Husband is receiving unreported rental income.
On July 1, 2026, Wife submitted calculations for spousal support. However, Wife’s calculations uses income from a job that Husband hasn’t worked at since April of 2026. Additionally, neither of the submitted calculations factor in Husband’s childcare expenses or uninsured medical expenses for their son. The calculations also account for unreported rental income for Husband. Wife doesn’t provide any proof of the rental income either.
The following monthly inputs were used in running an XSpouse calculation.
Wife: 1. $2,285 average income, including overtime, from her four provided paystubs.
Husband: 1. $6,131 average income, including overtime, from his four provided paystubs.
Husband has no deductions.
Husband claims $1,549 in work-related childcare and $339 health insurance costs (Husband claims this is his uninsured health care cost in one place, and claims it is cost of health insurance for the child in another place). This is subject to Husband providing supporting documentation.
Based on the above inputs, effective May 28, 2026, Husband must pay to Wife pendente lite spousal support in the amount of $687 per month, payable one-half on the 1st and onehalf on the 15th of each month. Spousal support shall continue until Wife remarries, either party dies, or further Court order. Spousal support is neither taxable to the recipient nor deductible by the payor.
Attorney fees Wife submitted a declaration stating that her attorney charges $500 an hour, that she has incurred $7,327 in fees and costs related solely to the dissolution proceedings. Her IED also reports $2,775 in outstanding balance of attorney fees. Wife states that Husband has the ability to pay for her attorney fees because he is living in the family home and renting out 2 bedrooms in the house.
On June 10, 2026, Husband’s attorney substituted out and Husband is now self-represented. Huband states that he has outstanding balance of $5,000 in attorney fees from his former attorney. (Father also shows in his IED a total of $10,400 in outstanding legal fees.)
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?”
Based on the record before this Court, the Court does not find that Father has the ability to pay Mother’s attorney’s fees at this time. Accordingly, Mother’s request for a contribution of attorney’s fees in the amount of $10,000 is denied.
Property Control- Exclusive use of Marital Home On January 26, 2026, the court granted each party’s request for Domestic Violence Restraining Orders. Husband’s December 17, 2025, Temporary DVRO required Wife to move out of the Novato property; both parties acknowledge that Husband has continued to live in the marital home.
Per Fam. Code §6340, “(c) The court may issue an order...excluding a person from a dwelling if the court finds that physical or emotional harm would otherwise result... a minor child of the parties...”
Wife has not presented any evidence to support a Court order that Husband move out of the marital home. In fact, the basis for Wife’s request is that Husband is a higher earner and thus has the ability to rent an apartment. However, Wife, per her IED, states that she pays rent in the amount of $800. Husband’s IED states that he pays the mortgage of the marital home in the amount of $3,011.17. It would not be a financial benefit to Wife who is asking for spousal support to meet her needs.
Accordingly, Wife’s request for exclusive use of the marital home is denied.
Counsel for Mother to 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.
santos v mazariegos fl0001759.xsp Xspouse 2026-1-CA
Fixed Shares Father Mother Monthly figures Cash Flow #of children 1 0 2026 Guideline Proposed % time with NCP 0.00 % 40.00 % Comb. net spendable 6904 6904 Filing status MFS-> <-MFS GUIDELINE Percent change 0% 0% # exemptions 2 * 1 * Nets(adjusted) Father Wages+salary 6971 1932 Father 5204 Payment cost/benefit -687 -687 Self-employed income 0 0 Mother 1700 Net spendable income 4517 4517 Other taxable income 0 0 Total 6904 Change from guideline 0 0 TANF+CS received 0 0 Support Other nontaxble income 0 0 Addons % of combined spendable 65% 65% 0 New spouse income 0 0 Guideln CS % of saving over guideline 0% 0% 0 401(k) employee contrib 0 0 Total taxes 1428 1428 Marin SS 687 Adjustments to income 0 0 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Total 687 SS paid prev marriage 0 0 # withholding allowances 0 0 - CS paid prev marriage 0 0 Settings changed Net wage paycheck 5054 5054 Health insurance 339 0 Mother Other medical expense 0 0 Payment cost/benefit 687 687 Property tax expense 0 0 Net spendable income 2387 2387 Ded interest expense 0 0 Proposed Change from guideline 0 0 Charitable contributions 0 0 Tactic 9 % of combined spendable 35% 35% Misc tax deductions 0 0 CS 0 Qual bus income ded 0 0 SS % of saving over guideline 0% 0% 687 Required union dues 0 0 Total Total taxes 232 232 687 Mandatory retirement 0 0 Dep. exemption value 0 0 Hardship deduction 0 * 0 * Saving 0 # withholding allowances 0 0 Other GDL deductions 0 0 Releases 0 Net wage paycheck 1601 1601 Child care expenses 0 0
Father pays Guideline SS, Proposed SS
FC 4055 checking: ON Per Child Information Timeshare cce(F) cce(M) Addons Payor Basic CS Payor Pres CS Payor All children 60 - 40 0 0 0 Father 0 Father 0 Father
Damian 60 - 40 0 0 0 Father 0 Father 0 Father
Time: 12:55:58 Superior Court of California Date: 07/07/26 County of Marin