Husband Failed To Meet His Burden In Showing Abuse Of Discretion Where Trial Court Considered All Evidence Presented, Husband Had Significant Financial Resources, And Wife’s Needs-Based Fee Payments To Husband Accounted For 45% Of His Total Fees.
In Marriage of Burns, Case No. H046858 (6th Dist., April 17, 2020) (unpublished), a husband with significantly less monthly income than wife requested a post-judgment award of needs-based attorney fees under Family Code sections 2030 and 2032. Although the husband requested $49,000.00, the trial court awarded him only $15,000.00. Husband appealed – citing abuse of discretion and failure to issue a statement of decision.
The Sixth District was not persuaded and affirmed. The trial court has broad discretion in determining how to apportion fees equitably between the parties. Although the trial court did not issue a statement of decision to explain how it arrived at the $15,000.00 award as an appropriate apportionment, it was not required to do so. (Gorman v. Tassajara Development Corp. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 44, 67.) Also, the trial court did not summarily reject any of the arguments or evidence provided by the parties – telling them it was “going to need time” to consider the request, then taking more than a month to issue its ruling – showing the trial court did exercise its discretion and consider the relevant statutory factors in reaching its decision. (Alan S. v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 238,254.)
Additionally, the record reflected sufficient evidence, that the trial court was entitled to consider, which showed that husband was awarded an amount that was reasonably necessary, and just and reasonable under the relative circumstances of the respective parties. (Alan S. v. Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 238,253.) Although husband’s monthly income was significantly less than wife’s, he had significant financial resources, plus his monthly income (including spousal support) exceeded his monthly expenses by about $4,200. Wife had substantial income and assets, but also had a negative monthly cash flow of almost $2,000 in the month following husband’s fee request. The trial court also could have taken consideration of the fact that wife had already paid $40,000 in needs-based attorney fees to husband – totaling approximately 45% of husband’s total fees when combined with the $15,000 – and another $10,000 toward husband’s expert costs.