Lisa Michele Hartmayer v. Lucas Dwayne French

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

5) 6 LISA MICHELE HARTMAYER,) Case Number: FDI-25-801501) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: July 28, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 LUCAS DWAYNE FRENCH,) Department: 404) 10 Respondent) Presiding: AI MORI) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER: SPOUSAL OR PARTNER SUPPORT, ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS 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) Petitioner Lisa Hartmayer (Wife) and Respondent Lucas French (Husband) married on 18 10/21/2017.

Petitioner contends the parties separated on 10/14/2024, for a marriage of 6 years and 19 11 months. Respondent contends the parties separated on 1/3/2025, for a marriage of 7 years and 20 2 months. The parties do not have minor children. Both parties are currently self-represented, but 21 are using consulting attorneys. 22 2) On for hearing is Husband’s Request for Order filed 5/20/2026 seeking temporary guideline 23 spousal support and $20,000 in need-based attorney’s fees. 24 3) On 7/20/2026, Wife filed a Responsive Declaration asking the Court to find that both parties are 25 self-supporting and order that both parties pay for their own attorney’s fees and costs.

Wife states 26 that she works between 36 and 40 hours per week, and she often works night shifts and 27 weekends. Wife states that Husband could be earning more as a Physician’s Assistant, but he 28 prefers to work lower stress and lower paid jobs with flexible hours. Wife states she believes 29 Husband is working less than 40 hours per week. Wife also states that just 5 days prior to her

1 filing her Responsive Declaration, the house in Connecticut where her father (age 80), mother 2 (age 71), and aunt (age 76) reside burned down. Wife states she contacted her employer and has 3 been offered an unpaid leave of absence for up to six months to care for her elderly family. Wife 4 states she is using vacation time right now, but tentatively estimates that she will be on a leave of 5 absence for three months commencing 8/1/2026. Wife states it will be a financial hardship to be 6 without income for three months and asks that the Court award her spousal support for those three 7 months and then determine Husband’s need for support when she returns from leave. 8 4) On 7/23/2026, Husband filed a Reply Declaration reiterating all of his original requests.

Husband 9 states he currently works 40 hours per week. Husband argues, “The fact that some PAs may earn 10 higher salaries does not establish that I can immediately obtain comparable employment or that 11 my current income is intentionally reduced.” Husband states he has lived in his friend’s spare 12 room since separation. Husband states, “This matter involves disputed issues regarding spousal 13 support, attorney’s fees, property characterization and division, reimbursement claims and a 14 potential Moore/Marsden analysis on both of our real property homes, all of which require 15 competent legal representation.

I am willing to engage in good-faith mediation to resolve the 16 remaining financial issues in our case. However, this does not eliminate my need for spousal 17 support and in fact increases my need for support and an award of attorney’s fees as I will require 18 legal representation to assist me in mediation.” Regarding Wife’s family emergency, Husband 19 states, “Based on Petitioner’s paystubs, she has not missed work or suffered any reduction in 20 income as a result of this family emergency.

Although Petitioner indicated she may request 21 unpaid leave of absence in the future, that leave is a choice, has not occurred, and is not presently 22 affecting her income or earning capacity. A potential future decision to take unpaid leave does not 23 eliminate Petitioner’s current ability to pay temporary spousal support and contribute to my 24 attorney’s fees. If Petitioner later elects to voluntarily reduce her employment, that decision 25 should not automatically shift the financial burden to me to pay her spousal support.

Moreover, 26 Petitioner remains a highly compensated Nurse Practitioner within the University of California 27 system with substantial earning capacity that should not be overlooked. As such, I respectfully 28 request the Court deny Petitioner’s request for spousal support as her request is unsupported.” 29

1 B. Findings and Order 2 1) Base Temporary Spousal Support 3 a. Effective 5/20/2026 (the date Husband filed his Request for Order), in accordance with 4 the XSpouse calculation attached hereto and incorporated herein, Wife shall pay to 5 Husband temporary base guideline spousal support of $895 per month. One-half shall be 6 due and payable by the 1st and one-half shall be due and payable by the 15th of each 7 month. 8 b. Base support for July 2026 shall be paid in full no later than 7/31/2026. 9 c.

Based on the foregoing, Wife owes to Husband temporary base spousal support arrears in 10 the amount of $318 for the period 5/20/2026 – 5/31/2026 and $895 for June 2026, for 11 total base support arrears due and owing of $1,213 for the period 5/20/2026 – 6/30/2026. 12 These arrears shall be paid in full no later than 8/15/2026. 13 2) Smith / Ostler Temporary Spousal Support 14 a. Effective 5/20/2026, in addition to temporary base guideline spousal support, each party 15 shall pay to the other the applicable percentage of any additional gross income (e.g., 16 overtime pay, bonuses, and additional compensation) received in excess of their base 17 salary, pursuant to the Bonus Tables attached the second XSpouse calculation. 18 b.

The Court notes that the Guerneville rental property appears to be generating $0 in net 19 rental income annually, even excluding depreciation. The Court further lacks sufficient 20 information to determine whether the property is Husband's separate property or 21 community property. Therefore, the Court reserves jurisdiction to determine whether any 22 future net rental income from the Guerneville property should be included in the parties' 23 Smith/Ostler calculation and, if so, in what amount. 24 c.

The parties shall perform a quarterly true-up to determine Smith / Ostler temporary 25 spousal support due and owing between the parties. Commencing 10/15/2026, and 26 thereafter on January 15th, April 15th, July 15th, October 15th of each year, the parties 27 shall exchange documents showing all income received in the immediately preceding 28 three months and the parties shall meet and confer to determine what amount in Smith / 29 Ostler temporary spousal support, if any, is due and owing between the parties.

The

1 parties shall pay any Smith / Ostler temporary spousal support due and owing between 2 the parties no later than January 31st, April 30th, July 31st, and October 31st. 3 d. The October 15th true-up shall be for all income earned during the period 5/20/2026 – 4 9/30/2026. 5 3) Wife's Request Regarding Anticipated Leave of Absence 6 a. Wife’s request for spousal support during any period in which she elects to take a leave 7 of absence from work to care for her family is denied. 8 b. The Court’s jurisdiction is reserved to recalculate support owed by Wife, if any, during 9 any periods in which she takes leave from work.

If the Court were to recalculate support 10 owed by Wife during any leave periods, the Court would consider whether Wife had any 11 accrued vacation leave or other paid leave benefits available to her, and would consider 12 imputing to Wife as income any vacation leave or other paid leave benefits available to 13 her that she did not elect to use. 14 4) Attorney’s Fees and Costs 15 a. The Court finds there is a disparity in access to funds to pay legal fees and that Wife has 16 the ability to make a contribution to Husband’s attorney’s fees while also paying for her 17 own attorney’s fees, given her additional cash savings, the fact that her net spendable 18 income will be slightly higher than Husband’s after base support is paid, and that Wife 19 earns significant income in addition to her base income, of which Wife will only pay a 20 percentage to Husband in Smith / Ostler temporary spousal support.

The Court does not 21 find that Wife has the ability to pay the full $20,000 Husband is requesting while also 22 paying for her own fees. The Court will instead award to Husband $10,000, which the 23 Court finds to be a just, reasonable, and necessary amount. Wife shall pay this amount to 24 Husband no later than 8/15/2026. 25 5) The Court will prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 26

29