William D Ross v. Stephen R Crow

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 WILLIAM D ROSS,) Case Number: FDI-20-794096) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: April 14, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 STEPHEN R CROW,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: CHANGE OF REQUEST FOR HEARING 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) The parties are Petitioner William D.

Ross and Respondent Stephen R. Crow. 18 2) On 1/8/26, the Court issued an order regarding the property located at 779 Waller Street, San 19 Francisco (Waller Street property). This order details the extensive rulings the Court has made 20 concerning this property dated back to a Statement of Decision filed 5/11/23, which orders the 21 property be listed for sale by 7/15/23. Of note is this Court’s appointment of an elisor to sign the 22 listing agreement on behalf of Petitioner. See Findings and Order After Hearing (FOAH) filed 23 1/23/26. 24 3) On 3/6/26, Petitioner filed a Request for Order seeking the Court’s permission to “pursue 25 assumption of the existing mortgage loan” on the property located at 779 Waller Street, San 26 Francisco (Waller Street property).

Petitioner states, “Petitioner is seeking to assume the existing 27 loan and buy out Respondent’s interest in the property. Petitioner has communicated with the 28 lender regarding this option and understands that the loan may be assumed subject to lender 29 approval.” Petitioner requests the Court permit reasonable time for lender evaluation and

1 completion of the assumption process before the forced sale of the property. The matter was set 2 for hearing on 5/12/26. 3 4) On 3/10/26, Petitioner submitted an ex parte application seeking temporary emergency orders as 4 follows: (a) the status quo regarding the Waller Street property be maintained; (b) activation of 5 any listing, marketing, showing, or sale of the property temporarily stayed; (c) any requirement 6 that Petitioner vacate the property temporarily stayed; (d) these temporary orders remain in effect 7 until the 5/12/26 hearing (on Petitioner’s Request for Order filed 3/6/26). 8 5) Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Petitioner’s ex parte application (file 9 dated 3/9/26).

Respondent states that the elisor signed the listing agreement per the Court’s 1/8/26 10 order though Petitioner has not vacated the property, so the property could not be listed for sale. 11 Respondent opposes a buy out and wants the property to be listed for sale forthwith. It is 12 Respondent’s position that Petitioner only seeks to delay the sale process. Respondent requests 13 $1,612 in Family Code section 271 sanctions for Petitioner’s repeated actions taken to delay the 14 sale of the home. 15 6) On 3/10/26, the Court denied Petitioner’s request for temporary emergency orders pending 16 hearing set for 4/14/26. 17 B.