Marriage of Ross and Crow CA1/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 21, 2024A168522California1,321 words

Opinion

Opinion

Burns, J.

BACKGROUND

A.

Several years before their marriage, Ross and Crow purchased a home in San Francisco as joint tenants. They later registered as domestic partners and, eventually, married. After Ross petitioned to dissolve the marriage, in November 2020, they

1 continued to live together in the residence for the next 8 months. In June 2021, Crow moved out of the residence, leaving Ross as the sole occupant.

B.

About three months before trial to divide the couple’s marital assets, the court granted a motion by Ross’s counsel to be relieved. The court later granted Ross’s ex parte application to continue trial to permit his new attorney more time to prepare, and it set a new trial date for March 21, 2023.

On March 10, 2023, Ross filed a second ex parte application to continue the trial. In a supporting declaration, Ross detailed numerous health issues. He explained he “had difficulty” focusing during [a recent] settlement conference “due to poor health” precipitated by this litigation. He “did not realize until [the judicial settlement conference], . . . that dealing with this divorce action would take a large toll on [his] health.” He said that two doctors separately warned him…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.