Request for Order — Fix and Liquidate Unreimbursed Expenses
This matter was continued for hearing on Respondent/Father’s Request for Order (“RFO”) to fix and liquidate unreimbursed expenses in the amount of $8,747.16, representing Mother’s 50% share of childcare, medical and other expenses Father paid on behalf of the parties’ children, Kayden (DOB 10/9/2007) and Dillan (DOB 8/18/2011). Petitioner/Mother’s Response included a request for reimbursement for expenses paid by her.
The Court’s 3/13/2026 ordered each party seeking ret1mbursement to provide a summary of the mandatory add-on categories and those expenses for which there is an express, mutual agreement to share the expense and to take out any from their initial filings any expenses which are not mandatory add-ons or for which there is not an express, mutual agreement. The Court further ordered that the parties were then to meet and confer to see what they agree on, and then file by 4/16/2026 an updated Declaration attaching their summaries and advising the Court, as to each summary category, what amount they are requesting.
On 4/16/2026 Father filed a Declaration stating that, despite multiple good faith attempts to contact Mother to meet and confer, he never received a response until the day before the revised spreadsheets were due. Father further states that Kayden’s health insurance is paid through his spouse (Nicki), but it is treated as taxable income to Nicki, which “results in a significant out-ofpocket cost that I reimburse to Nicki.” Father lists on his spreadsheet seeking $275/month for Kayden’s health, but the Court has been advised the agreement was for Father to be responsible for Dillan’s medical expenses, and Mother to be responsible for Kayden’s medical expenses.
Father provides no proof of the amount he is paying to Nicki for the insurance coverage. On 4/17/2024 Mother filed a Declaration Re: Reimbursement of Add-On Expenses with a revised spreadsheet. The Court is unable to make sense of Mother’s spreadsheet.
FL1901746
In short, both parties’ spreadsheets raise more questions than they answer. Therefore, the Court orders as follows: 1. The parties are ordered to meet and confer in person to see what expenses on each other’s spreadsheets they agree to, and what expenses they do not agree to. If Mother does not meet and confer in good faith as ordered, her requests for reimbursement will be denied.
2. The matter is being specially set by the Court for hearing on 6/29/2026 at 9:00 am in Department E. Both parties are ordered to appear. Appearances may be made remotely via Zoom.
SO ORDERED.
The Court will prepare the order per Rule 5.125, CA Rules of Court.
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?”
Any party who disagrees with the Court's tentative ruling and wishes to have oral argument must notify the Court at (415) 444-7046 and opposing counsel (or if the opposing party is self- represented, notice must be given directly to the opposing party) of their intent to appear at the hearing for oral argument by 4:00 pm on the court day before the hearing, as required by Marin County Superior Court Family Law Local Rules 7.12(B) and (C). Notice may be given by telephone or in person. Absent proper notice, no oral argument will be permitted. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.
Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, persons who requested oral argument must appear for the hearing in person or remotely via Zoom, in accordance with the Court website guidelines. If appearing remotely via Zoom (video or telephone), you are responsible for ensuring you have adequate connectivity; the Court may proceed in a party’s absence if technical issues arise. Proper Zoom etiquette and courtroom decorum are required, and failure to comply may result in the hearing being halted and an order to appear in person being made.