Supreme Court of California

As applied to contested marital dissolution trials, a local court rule and trial scheduling order in a family law court, which provide that in dissolution trials parties must present their case by means of written declarations, are inconsistent with various statutory provisions and conflict with the hearsay rule.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/06/2007
• Published 08/06/2007

Judges

• GEORGE, C.J.

Court

• Supreme Court of California

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Garrett C. Dailey for Petitioner., Law Offices of Marjorie G. Fuller, Marjorie G. Fuller, Fullerton, and Shara Beral Witkin, Irvine, for Southern California Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Northern California Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Los Angeles County Bar Association, Los Angeles County Bar Association Family Law Section, Orange County Bar Association, Honorable Donald B. King, Honorable Sheila Prell Sonenshine, Honorable J.E.T. Rutter and Honorable Richard Denner as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner., Fancher & Wickland, Paige Leslie Wickland;  Harkins & Sargent and Daniel S. Harkins for Real Party in Interest., Fox and Bank, Ronald S. Granberg, Salinas, Dawn Gray, Grass Valley, Linda Seinturier, Redding, Kathryn Fox, Bakersfield, Brigeda D. Bank;  and Stephen Temko, San Diego, for Association of Certified Family Law Specialists as Amicus Curiae upon the request of the Supreme Court., Lee C. Pearce, Walnut Creek, for the Family Law Section of the Contra Costa County Bar Association as Amicus Curiae upon the request of the Supreme Court.


• For Appellees:
  
• Horvitz & Levy, David S. Ettinger, Encino;  Eisenberg and Hancock and Jon B. Eisenberg, Oakland, for Respondent.