Husband Already Got Nice First Pendente Lite Award And Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Concluding Parent Lawsuit Was Not “Related” To Family Law Proceeding.
Going to the well too often can have consequences, as the fourth appeal in Sweeney v. Evilsizor, Case No. A144781 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 19, 2016) (unpublished) demonstrates.
There, ex-husband had gotten an initial pendente lite fee award of $125,000, which was affirmed in a third appeal. Ex-husband then sought another $12,600 in fees for appeals work and another $28,589 in fees incurred to fight ex-wife’s parents’ civil lawsuit over a loan. The lower court denied both requests, prompting the fourth appeal.
The fee denial orders were affirmed. Because ex-husband admitted that the trial judge got it right on the initial pendente lite award, it was hard to argue he got it wrong when denying fees the second time around as far as knowledge of the applicable needs-based fees principles under the Family Code. With respect to fees for the parents’ suit which he claimed was one “related” to the dissolution matter (with fees being allowable for “related” matters under Family Code section 2030(c)), the lower court did not abuse its discretion in concluding the matter was not “related” at that juncture in the dissolution action although that determination could be revisited and changed in the future if the lower court found it was appropriate to do so.
Note: We posted on an earlier appellate case between Sweeney and Evilsizor on October 28, 2014, involving affirmance of a sanctions order.