Tentative Rulings
Civil Tentative Rulings and Probate Examiner Recommendations are available below. All attempts possible are made to have the information on these pages updated by 3:00pm the day prior to hearing in order to allow for any needed continuances or travel if an appearance should be required.
Civil Tentative Rulings: The court does not issue tentative rulings on Writs of Attachment, Writs of Possession, Claims of Exemption, Claims of Right to Possession, Motions to Tax Costs After Trial, Motions for New Trial, or Motions to Continue Trial. Under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 701, any party opposed to the tentative ruling must notify the court and other parties by 4:00 p.m. today of their intention to appear for oral argument. The court's notice must be made by facsimile (fax) to 559-733-6774; by email to research_attorney@tulare.courts.ca.gov; or by telephoning (559) 730-5010.
Probate Examiner Recommendations: For further information regarding a Visalia probate matter listed below you may contact the Visalia Probate Document Examiner at 559-730-5000 ext #2342. For further information regarding a SCJC probate matter listed below you may contact the SCJC Probate Document Examiner at 559-730-5000 ext #1430. The Probate Calendar Clerk may be reached at 559-730-5000 Option 4, then Option 6.
Civil Tentative Rulings & Probate Examiner Recommendations
The Tentative Rulings for Thursday, October 16, 2025, are:
Re: In the Matter of CBC Settlement Funding, LLC
Case No.: VCU322720
Date: October 16, 2025
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias
Motion: Continued Petition for Approval of Transfer of Structured Settlement
Tentative Ruling: To grant the petition.
Facts
On August 6, 2025, Petitioner, on behalf of Payee SW, filed an amended petition. Payee is 48 years of age, married with three minor children
Payee receives a total monthly income of $12,790.31 from multiple sources as follows: military pension of $4,332.26; $3,199.05 per month from a structured annuity; $2,748.00 in Social Security Income (SSI); and $2,511.00 from rental properties.
Payee does not indicate his monthly expenses.
Payee indicates Payee is not likely to require future medical care and treatment for injuries sustained in connection with the settlement and that the settlement was not intended for such purposes.
Payee’s annuity originally had the following structured settlement payments: 480 payments of $4,249.05 starting August 1, 2022.
The Court in January 2025, approved the transfer 120 monthly payments in the amount of $1,050 beginning January 1, 2025 through December 1, 2034 in exchange for $70,000.
The Court, in its prior ruling, noted the use of the funds as follows:
“Payee states he has two rental properties that need renovations to a fence and to a floor. Payee also indicates his patio needs to be replaced before winter. Payee’s supplemental declaration indicates the he previously attempted to qualify for a conventional loan to fund the necessary repairs on my rental properties, but that the application was denied. Payee provides estimates of the patio repair at $36,650, the flooring repair at $30,625 and the fence estimate at $7,134.”
Via this petition, Payee seeks to transfer 240 monthly payments in the amount of $450.00 beginning January 1, 2026 through and including December 1, 2045 (a discounted present value of $67,129.92) in exchange for $39,000. This creates a discount rate of 12.24%.
Payee will still receive a portion of the monthly installment payments if this transfer is granted.
As to the use of the prior transfer and proposed use of this transfer, Payee previously stated:
“The funds from my previous transaction were used for necessary repairs to my two rental properties. Additionally, I had to demolish and refinish the patio surrounding my pool, which resulted in unexpected costs. These additional expenses are the primary reason I am now seeking a second transaction….
I intend to use the proceeds from this transaction to complete essential home and rental property renovations that were not fully addressed during my prior transaction. One of the primary goals of that deal was to complete a patio project at my personal residence; however, due to unforeseen structural issues and rising material costs, the project exceeded initial estimates. We also made some necessary design changes during the process, which further increased expenses and prevented me from starting other planned renovations, including replacing the floors in my two rental properties.
These rental units are a critical source of income for me and my family, and the current flooring is worn, outdated, and in need of full replacement. I’ve obtained contractor estimates totaling $27,906.00 for the flooring work across both units. During my first transaction, I had to make temporary repairs just to keep the properties rentable. Accessing funds now will allow me to properly complete the job and preserve the value and habitability of these units for current and future tenants. The remaining $11,594.00 will be used to finalize the patio project at my home, which still requires additional work to be safely completed. These improvements are necessary not only for my family’s comfort and safety but also to avoid taking on high-interest debt during a period of economic uncertainty….” (Declaration of Payee ¶¶10, 13.)
The Court previously denied the prior petition, noting information such as Payee’s monthly expenses would indicate to the Court the effect of the transferring the structured settlement payments at issue and that the declaration contains insufficient information for the Court to fully analyze Payee’s economic situation. Additionally, the Court raised the additional issue regarding the use of the funds that were transferred in January 2025. The Court expressly sought a more detailed explanation of the use of those funds and receipts thereof.
On October 3, 2025, Petitioner filed a further declaration of Payee, stating that the prior $70,000 were paid directly to contracts for improvements to his property, as opposed to the rental properties.
This additional $39,000 requested seeks to complete the unfinished home repairs. Additionally, Payee provides a monthly income and expense document that permits the Court to determine the impact of this transfer.
Authority and Analysis
A transfer of structured settlement payment rights is not effective unless the transfer has been approved in advance in a final court order based on the following express findings by the Court.
Under Ins. Code § 10139.5(a)(1), the Court must determine whether the “transfer is in the best interest of the payee, taking into account the welfare and support of the payee’s dependents.” The Court considers the following non-exclusive factors under Ins. Code § 10139.5(b):
(1) The reasonable preference and desire of the payee to complete the proposed transaction, taking into account the payee’s age, mental capacity, legal knowledge, and apparent maturity level.
(2) The stated purpose of the transfer.
(3) The payee’s financial and economic situation.
(4) The terms of the transaction, including whether the payee is transferring monthly or lump sum payments or all or a portion of his or her future payments.
(5) Whether, when the settlement was completed, the future periodic payments that are the subject of the proposed transfer were intended to pay for the future medical care and treatment of the payee relating to injuries sustained by the payee in the incident that was the subject of the settlement and whether the payee still needs those future payments to pay for that future care and treatment.
(6) Whether, when the settlement was completed, the future periodic payments that are the subject of the proposed transfer were intended to provide for the necessary living expenses of the payee and whether the payee still needs the future structured settlement payments to pay for future necessary living expenses.
(7) Whether the payee is, at the time of the proposed transfer, likely to require future medical care and treatment for the injuries that the payee sustained in connection with the incident that was the subject of the settlement and whether the payee lacks other resources, including insurance, sufficient to cover those future medical expenses.
(8) Whether the payee has other means of income or support, aside from the structured settlement payments that are the subject of the proposed transfer, sufficient to meet the payee’s future financial obligations for maintenance and support of the payee’s dependents, specifically including, but not limited to, the payee’s child support obligations, if any. The payee shall disclose to the transferee and the court his or her court-ordered child support or maintenance obligations for the court’s consideration.
(9) Whether the financial terms of the transaction, including the discount rate applied to determine the amount to be paid to the payee, the expenses and costs of the transaction for both the payee and the transferee, the size of the transaction, the available financial alternatives to the payee to achieve the payee’s stated objectives, are fair and reasonable.
(10) Whether the payee completed previous transactions involving the payee’s structured settlement payments and the timing and size of the previous transactions and whether the payee was satisfied with any previous transaction.
(11) Whether the transferee attempted previous transactions involving the payee’s structured settlement payments that were denied, or that were dismissed or withdrawn prior to a decision on the merits, within the past five years.
(12) Whether, to the best of the transferee’s knowledge after making inquiry with the payee, the payee has attempted structured settlement payment transfer transactions with another person or entity, other than the transferee, that were denied, or which were dismissed or withdrawn prior to a decision on the merits, within the past five years.
(13) Whether the payee, or his or her family or dependents, are in or are facing a hardship situation.
(14) Whether the payee received independent legal or financial advice regarding the transaction. The court may deny or defer ruling on the petition for approval of a transfer of structured settlement payment rights if the court believes that the payee does not fully understand the proposed transaction and that independent legal or financial advice regarding the transaction should be obtained by the payee.
(15) Any other factors or facts that the payee, the transferee, or any other interested party calls to the attention of the reviewing court or that the court determines should be considered in reviewing the transfer.”
The Court will grant the petition based on the supplemental declaration. Payee has sufficient monthly income without the future payment and the Court approves the proposed use of the funds.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Re: Ali, Alian vs. General Motors LLC
Case No.: VCU317633
Date: October 16, 2025
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias
Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further (1) Form Interrogatories (2) Special Interrogatories (3) Requests for Production and (4) Requests for Admissions
Tentative Ruling: There are no tentative rulings on the merits for these motions. The parties are directed to meaningfully meet and confer before the hearing of these motions to resolve the discovery disputes identified in the moving and opposition papers for these discovery motions. If unable to resolve, counsel are directed to personally appear for the hearing on these discovery motions. No CourtCall or Zoom appearances will be permitted if the parties are unable to resolve this matter prior to the scheduled hearing.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.
Re: Smee Homes, Inc. vs. Marroquin, Gilbert III
Case No.: VCU323450
Date: October 16, 2025
Time: 8:30 A.M.
Dept. 1-The Honorable David C. Mathias
Motion: Continued Application for Prejudgment Writ of Attachment
Tentative Ruling: The Court does not issue tentative rulings on these applications. Counsel and the parties may appear in any manner.
If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.