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: May 12, 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 RE: REQUEST FOR HEARING; REQUEST FOR ORDER RE: PROPERTY 13 CONTROL, SEE ATTACHMENT 7 14 TENTATIVE RULING 15 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 16 Court makes the following findings and orders: 17 A. Procedural History 18 1) The parties are Petitioner William D.

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

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

1 reasonable time for lender evaluation and completion of the assumption process before the forced 2 sale of the Waller Street property. The matter was set 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).

On 3/10/26, the Court 8 denied Petitioner’s request for temporary emergency orders pending hearing set for 4/14/26. 9 5) On 4/10/26, Respondent filed a Request for Order seeking: (a) exclusive use and possession of 10 the Waller Street property; (b) an order requiring Petitioner to pay all utility costs incurred from 11 June 2022 until the date Respondent takes possession of the property; (c) an order for Petitioner 12 to continue to pay the carrying costs on the property; and (d) authorization to open a blocked 13 account with Redwood Credit Union for the purpose of depositing the net proceeds from the sale 14 of the property into this account.

Respondent asserts that Petitioner's occupancy of the Waller 15 Street property has interfered with the sale process ordered by the Court as he has prohibited the 16 real estate agent from entering. Respondent states he does not intend to reside in the property, but 17 rather seeks exclusive use, possession, and control to ensure the realtor, repair persons, and 18 potential buyers will be able to access the property without delay. The matter was set for hearing 19 on 6/4/26. 20 6) At the prior 4/14/26 hearing, the Court denied Petitioner’s requests set forth in his 3/10/26 ex 21 parte application and reserved jurisdiction over Respondent’s request for $1,612 in Family Code 22 section 271 sanctions.

See FOAH filed 5/1/26. 23 7) On 4/17/26, Petitioner submitted an ex parte application seeking advancement of the 6/4/26 24 hearing to 5/12/26 based on judicial economy. Petitioner simultaneously filed a Request to 25 Reschedule Hearing. 26 8) On 4/20/26, the Court issued an Order on Request to Reschedule advancing the 6/4/26 hearing to 27 5/12/26 against Respondent’s objection. 28

1 9) On 4/21/26, Petitioner filed a Supplemental Declaration asserting that the Court needs to order a 2 complete financial accounting before it can proceed with enforcement of the orders forcing the 3 sale of the Waller Street property as reimbursements and offsets need to be determined. 4 10) On 4/30/26, Respondent filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Petitioner’s request to 5 assume a loan to buyout Respondent’s interest in the Waller Street property. Respondent asserts 6 that Petitioner’s intention is only to delay the sale and reiterates his request for an order for 7 exclusive use, possession, and control of the property to effectuate the sale; Respondent states, “I 8 intend to seek sanctions against Petitioner in the amount well over $80,000 for fees incurred due 9 to his failure to follow this Court’s order which caused me to incur fees to file repeated motions 10 to enforce the terms of the August 4, 2024 Judgment and subsequent orders.” 11 11) On 5/5/26, Petitioner filed a Responsive Declaration asserting that he does not consent to 12 vacating the Waller Street property and there is no practical reason requiring that he vacate the 13 property because he is cooperating with the sale process.

Petitioner opposes any order requiring 14 him to pay utility or carrying costs on the property and requests that Respondent be ordered to 15 pay such costs. It is Petitioner’s position that the property is not ready for immediate sale. 16 12) On 5/5/26, Petitioner filed a Supplemental Declaration reiterating his request regarding a 17 “proposed loan assumption and buyout alternative” for the Waller Street property. 18 B. Findings and Order 19 1) Petitioner’s request for an opportunity to pursue assumption of the existing mortgage loan on the 20 Waller Street property is DENIED.

To date, Petitioner presented no documentary evidence 21 demonstrating his ability to assume the loan or buy out Respondent’s interest in the property. In 22 the Court’s view, it is clear that Petitioner intends to delay the sale of the Waller Street property 23 for as long as he possibly can. 24 2) Based on the foregoing, Respondent’s request for exclusive use and possession of the Waller 25 Street property is GRANTED effective 6/12/26. The Court finds good cause to grant such a 26 request as Petitioner was previously ordered to vacate the residence and has refused to comply 27 with orders compelling the sale of the property since 2023.

The Court does not see a path in 28 which Petitioner remains living in the Waller Street property and the sale of the property is 29

1 completed. Respondent may submit an ex parte application for a Writ of Execution to effectuate 2 this order if necessary. 3 3) The Court reserves jurisdiction over Respondent’s request for an order requiring Petitioner to pay 4 all utility costs incurred from June 2022 until the date Respondent takes possession of the 5 property. 6 4) Respondent’s request that Petitioner be ordered to continue paying the carrying costs on the 7 property is DENIED. 8 5) Effective 6/12/26, Respondent shall be temporarily responsible for utility payments and carrying 9 costs associated with the property subject to reallocation. 10 6) Respondent’s request for authorization to open a blocked account with Redwood Credit Union for 11 the purpose of depositing the net proceed from the sale of the Waller Street property into this 12 account is GRANTED.

The proceeds from the sale of the property shall remain blocked until 13 further order of the Court (i.e., neither party is permitted to access the funds unless and until a 14 Court orders otherwise). 15 7) Counsel for Respondent shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 16 8) Preparation of Order: If you are directed by the court to prepare the order after hearing – within 17 10 calendar days of the hearing you must either: (a) Serve the proposed order to the other 18 party/counsel for approval, and follow the procedures set forth in CA Rules of Court, Rule 19 5.125(c), or (b) If the other party did not appear or the matter was uncontested, submit the 20 proposed order after hearing directly to the court.

Failure to submit the order after hearing within 21 10 days may allow the other party to prepare a proposed order and submit it to the court in 22 accordance with CA Rules of Court, Rule 5.125(d). 23

27

29