| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Request for Order to modify spousal support
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4
5) 6 LOURDES GIL VEGA,) Case Number: FDI-22-797335) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: May 12, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 DARLENE P HORTON,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER TO MODIFY SPOUSAL OR PARTNER SUPPORT 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 The parties are ordered to appear in-person or via Zoom to address whether the Court can or 15 should require Respondent to sell her condo in Mexico or her boat to pay for her own and 16 Petitioner’s support. If a party chooses to appear by video, that party must abide by the Notice and 17 Instructions for Remote Appearance in San Francisco Family Court set forth above. 18
19 A. Procedural History 20 1) The parties in this matter are Lourdes Gil Vega (Petitioner) and Darlene Horton (Respondent). 21 Petitioner is represented by attorney Peter Furst. Respondent is represented by attorney Vanessa 22 Hierbaum. 23 2) In an Amended Statement of Decision filed 7/10/2024, following a multi-day trial, Judge Tong 24 found Petitioner to be a putative spouse pursuant to Family Code section 2251(a)(1). Included in 25 the Statement of Decision are various factual findings, including that the parties met in Cuba in 26 February 2001 when Respondent was 39 and Petitioner was 38.
Although Petitioner was nervous 27 about immigrating to the United States because “she did not have any profession, did not know 28 the language, and would not have any friends or family in San Francisco,” Respondent promised 29 to provide for everything in the parties’ relationship. Petitioner immigrated to the United States
1 and Respondent “provided for everything throughout the relationship.” In January 2006, 2 Respondent gave birth to the parties’ son Sebastian. On 10/26/2026, the parties went to San 3 Francisco City Hall and registered as “San Francisco domestic partners.” Petitioner made 4 numerous requests to get married which were rebuffed by Respondent. On 9/10/2021, 5 Respondent emailed Petitioner stating they were not actually domestic partners because their 6 domestic partnership was never registered with the State of California, which was a surprise to 7 Petitioner.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Dissolution 12/5/2022. 8 3) At the prior 10/8/2024 hearing (per the Findings and Order After Hearing filed 11/1/2024), the 9 Court ordered Respondent to pay Petitioner $3,000 per month in non-guideline temporary spousal 10 support. In its order, the Court noted that Respondent is living in the marital residence, Petitioner 11 lives rent-free in an in-law unit adjacent to the marital residence, and Respondent has “significant 12 expenses.” The Court also ordered Respondent to pay Petitioner $20,000 in need-based attorney’s 13 fees and costs, finding this to be “the maximum that Respondent can pay at this juncture while 14 still maintaining expenses.”
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?”
The Court further denied Respondent’s request to issue a seek work 15 order against Petitioner, who the Court noted is “age 62, with no work history.” 16 4) Now on for hearing is Respondent’s Request for Order filed 1/8/2026 asking the Court to set 17 spousal support at $0 and either impute Petitioner with full-time minimum wage income or order 18 Petitioner to seek work. Respondent states she was laid off from her job with Jaguar Health and 19 her last day of work was on 9/15/2025. Respondent states she will receive a severance from 20 9/16/2025 through 1/15/2026 equal to her monthly salary prior to termination. 21 5) On 1/8/2026, Respondent filed an Income and Expense Declaration.
Respondent states she is 64 22 years old, has a college degree, and an MD. Respondent states she receives $249 per month in 23 pension / retirement fund payments. Respondent states she has been the owner of Horton 24 Consulting (a biotech consulting business) “off and on for 17 years” but Respondent states her 25 current income from the business as well as her income from the business over the past 12 26 months is $0. Respondent states she has $6,000 in cash and $7,000 in easily saleable investments. 27 Respondent states her real property holdings are “unknown.”
Respondent states that she pays 28 approximately $30,000 in expenses, which includes $4,958 per month for mortgage, $2,000 per 29 month for real property taxes, $3,000 per month for Sebastian’s college tuition, $2,876 per month
1 for life and accident insurance, $1,468 per month for expenses related to her boat, $3,600 per 2 month for expenses related to a condo in Mexico, and $6,353 per month towards a total balance 3 of $398,763 in credit card and other debt. 4 6) Respondent’s 1/8/2026 Request for Order was previously set for hearing on 3/19/2026. One day 5 prior to that hearing date, the Court received an email from Petitioner’s attorney Peter Furst 6 asking the Court to consider a Responsive Declaration that Mr. Furst stated he had e-filed a 7 Responsive Declaration that same day.
Mr. Furst explained that the reason for the late submission 8 was due to illness. The Court continued the 3/19/2026 hearing date to 5/12/2026 to give the Court 9 additional time to review the late submission. 10 7) The Court notes that since Mr. Furst sent his email, Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration has not 11 been filed and there is no indication in the e-filing transaction record that Petitioner’s Responsive 12 Declaration was submitted for e-filing. 13 8) On 5/5/2026, Respondent filed a Reply Declaration.
Respondent references Petitioner’s 14 Responsive Declaration (and thus it appears Respondent received and reviewed Petitioner’s 15 Responsive Declaration). Respondent states that exhibits attached to Petitioner’s Responsive 16 Declaration were stolen from her personal belongings and contain passwords and confidential 17 information from private investments that Respondent held confidentially. Respondent argues 18 that not a single asset Petitioner describes in her Responsive Declaration provides Petitioner with 19 meaningful liquidity or ability to pay the current support order.
Respondent attached to her Reply 20 Declaration a “spreadsheet summarizing the accounts and assets Petitioner addresses in her 21 Response, with my commentary on each.” Respondent states Petitioner asserts that Respondent 22 engineered her own firing as evidenced by a Performance Improvement Plan that Respondent was 23 placed on. Respondent states, “The documents Lourdes stole include only partial records related 24 to the PIP...The PIP was part of a pattern the company employed against multiple executives it 25 sought to terminate cheaply.
I am aware of this because Jaguar’s CEO previously asked me to 26 place one of my own top-performing employees on a PIP without justifiable cause, which I 27 refused to carry out. I subsequently became the target of the same unethical conduct. I did not 28 choose to leave my employment, and I would never voluntarily sacrifice my professional standing 29 and ability to meet my obligations to make a litigation tactic more viable.” Respondent also
1 references a request by Petitioner that Respondent be ordered to seek work, and Respondent 2 states that any seek work order should apply equally to Petitioner. Respondent also asserts that 3 Petitioner and attorney Peter Furst have been provided, with supporting evidence, detailed 4 responses to many of the very allegations now repeated in Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration, 5 and that Petitioner’s raising these claims now is sanctionable conduct. Respondent attached as 6 Exhibit G an updated Schedule of Assets and Debts signed by Respondent on 5/5/2026 which 7 lists the following assets and debts.
The Court notes that Respondent states that every single asset 8 listed in the Schedule of Assets and Debts is Respondent’s separate property. 9 a. 850 De Haro Street in San Francisco (estimated value $2.5 million, mortgage of 10 approximately $1 million) 11 b. Condo in Mexico (estimated value $880,000, no mortgage) 12 c. Piano, furniture and sound system, tools, exercise equipment, etc. (value unknown) 13 d. Park West Artwork ($15,000) 14 e. Jewelry ($1,000) 15 f. Lexus ($3,000) 16 g. Honda ($8,000) 17 h.
Boat ($30,000, but value would be $70,000 if Respondent pays $15,000 in repairs) 18 i. Cash Savings (less than $2,000) 19 j. 3 cancelled whole life insurance policies (no cash surrender value stated) 20 k. Investments (less than $1,000) 21 l. Retirement accounts (less than $2,500; Respondent liquidated her 401(k) and owes a loan 22 balance) 23 m. “Private investment” and “privately held shares” in various partnerships and other 24 business interests ($200,000) 25 B. Findings and Order 26 1) Because Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration was not actually filed, the Court will not consider it. 27 Additionally, Petitioner’s Responsive Declaration was not actually filed, the Court will not make 28 an order addressing Respondent’s claim that Petitioner attached confidential documents to her 29
1 Responsive Declaration. However, the Court’s jurisdiction to award sanctions related to 2 Respondent’s assertion that Petitioner stole documents from her is reserved. 3 2) The parties are ordered to appear to address whether the Court can or should require 4 Respondent to sell her condo in Mexico or her boat to pay for her own and Petitioner’s 5 support. 6
10
14
18
22
26
29