Appellate Court Found Settled Statements Should Be Encouraged, And Fee Award May Have Surrogate For Needs-Based Fees Under The Wrong Rubric.
This one may interest appellate practitioners more than family law practitioners. California Rules of Court, rule 8.137, actually encourages parties to agree to a settled statement where oral proceedings are not transcribed where there is a costs savings, the oral proceedings were not transcribed (a frequent occurrence with court reporters not being automatic in certain law departments), or the party seeking the settled statement is unable to pay for a reporter’s transcript.
The Sixth District in Mooney v. Superior Court (Mooney), Case No. H041500 (6th Dist. Feb. 9, 2016) (unpublished) reversed a family judge’s $10,000 fee award to ex-husband when ex-wife requested a settled statement (although not even granting or denying the settlement statement motion). Aside from finding a preference for the settled statement option, the appellate court found that (1) the court took notes such that such a statement should not have been an onerous requirement, and (2) the family law judge seemed to consider ex-husband’s fee requests under needs-based statutes even though no such motion was really pending—not to mention no findings made by the judge under Family Code section 2032. The matter was remanded for a new hearing on the settled statement motion, although here is the cautionary sentence from the Sixth District for the next hearing: “A motion for a settled statement should be granted as a matter of course unless there is a justifiable excuse for denying it.” (Slip Op., p. 14.)