TENTATIVE RULING

Judge Thomas Anderle
Department 3 SB-Anacapa
1100 Anacapa Street
P.O. Box 21107 
Santa Barbara, CA  93121-1107

FAMILY LAW

Nature of Proceedings: OSC Separation Date

This dissolution lawsuit was filed in Santa Maria by Eugene in 2001 after 30 years of 
marriage. The matter was transferred to this court. In November 2007 the parties bifurcated 
the marital status, and the judgment dissolving the marriage incorporated the usual 
warranties. All other issues were reserved. Thereafter the Santa Barbara County 
Employees Retirement System was joined in the litigation. In December 2007 Margaret 
sought and obtained a set aside of her default judgment. She filed her Response in 
November 2008. In August 2008 the parties filed a stipulation and order regarding the 
division of their automobiles. In July 2008 Margaret had her former name restored and is 
now Margaret Sophie Paszyc. 

On 9/30/09 Margaret filed an Order to Show Cause seeking numerous orders including:

1. Stipulated DRO (Domestic Relations Order) Re: Division of Retirement Benefits ---
Separation Date November 7, 2007;

2. Court to Reserve Jurisdiction Over Spousal Support;

3. Request to set aside Interspousal Grant Deed for 4318 Manchester Ct. Santa Maria. 
Request to set aside selling, disposing of furniture and items from house (she requests 
that the court set aside the selling and disposing of furniture from a house in Santa Maria, 
especially their son’s items based upon Eugene’s “written statement saying he would do so 
at Margaret’s expense.” She claims she discovered in November of 2007 that Eugene in 
1998 had acquired the house in Santa Maria as his separate property by an Interspousal 
Grant Deed and that he had refinanced the house several time and the house was bought 
in August of 1993 as husband and wife.)

4. Request that the Court award respondent travel expenses for Santa Barbara 
appearance. 

She filed a 3 page declaration and included 16 exhibits. 

On October 28 Eugene filed a voluminous response. He agrees the Court should retain 
jurisdiction over the issue of spousal support. He does not agree to pay attorney fees; does 
not consent to the “property restraint” and requests that Margaret be ordered to provide a 
list of the property she wants to be awarded to her at the time of this hearing and that she 
be ordered to move the property no later than November 15, 2009 or secure storage at her 
own cost. He disagrees with the “other relief” sought and contends that: 

1. That the date of separation was 2/1/97;
 
2. That Margaret is entitled to the time rule division of community share for the Santa 
Barbara County Employees Retirement System from 1979 through January 31, 1997; 

3. That the interspousal transfer deed should be affirmed as a valid transmutation of 
community property.  

In support of his positions he submits: 

a. His 9-page declaration and attaches exhibits A through S; 

b. The declaration of Darlene Reefer; the declaration of David Destino; the declaration of 
George Rogers; and 

c. A 14-page brief.

On November 3 Margaret filed a 19-page reply. Among other things she attaches

a. A statement of her position and attaches exhibits 1 through 3;

b. A reply to Eugene’s supporting declaration page (8) number (7), and attaches exhibits 1 
through 3;

c. A reply to Eugene’s supporting declaration pages (15) number (20);

d. A reply to Eugene’s supporting declaration page (15) number (21);

e. A reply to Eugene’s supporting declaration page (7) number (6);

f. A reply to Eugene’s supporting declaration page (13-14) number (19-20);

g. A reply to Eugene’s supporting declaration page (20) number (23);

In her declaration she reports that she did not appear before the notary in 1998.

At a previous hearing this Court confirmed that each party wanted the matter to be decided 
based upon the documents submitted and no additional evidence would be submitted.

Rulings:

1. The date of separation is 2/1/97. Margaret’s request for a later date is rejected. 

2. Margaret is entitled to the time rule division of a community share for the Santa Barbara 
County Employees Retirement System from 1979 through January 31, 1997. Margaret’s 
Stipulated DRO (Domestic Relations Order) Re: Division of Retirement Benefits 
designating a Separation Date of November 7, 2007, is rejected.

3. The interspousal transfer deed is affirmed as a valid transmutation of community 
property. Margaret’s request to set aside the Interspousal Grant Deed is rejected. 

4. Margaret’s request to set aside selling, disposing of furniture and items from the house 
(especially their son’s items based upon Eugene’s ‘written statement saying he would do 
so at Margaret’s expense,’” is denied, provided that Margaret will be granted the opportunity 
to provide a list of the furniture and furnishings she wants to be awarded to her at the time 
of this hearing on November 24, 2009, and that she will be ordered to move the property no 
later than December 15, 2009 to a location that she selects or secure storage at her own 
cost. If Margaret fails to do as directed herein she will forfeit any interest in those items 
from the house. 

5. The Court will reserve jurisdiction over the issue of spousal support;

6. Margaret’s request that the Court award her travel expenses for the Santa Barbara 
appearance is denied. 

7. I intend you will walk out of the courtroom with a “Judgment” on all these issues 
presented.