Timeliness And CRC 5.427 Noncompliance Arguments Rejected.
In Schwarzinger v. Reuter, Case No. A140153 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 29, 2015) (unpublished), an appellate court reluctantly reversed a custody order on due process grounds. However, it rejected challenges to a fees/cost order to respondent grounded in arguments that the fee petition was untimely or that it did not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 5.427.
The reviewing court did not find either argument persuasive.
First, respondent did timely file his fee petition, which is geared to the appeal time deadlines, as made clear recently in Kaufman v. Diskeeper Corp., 229 Cal.App.4th 1, 10 (2014).
Second, although respondent did not comply with rule 5.427 by failing to file a request under penalty of perjury, by failing to file any analog declaration at all, and failing to address other issues such as hourly rate/nature of the litigation/attorney's experience/frees and costs incurred or anticipated/why the costs are just, the lower court presumably followed the law (Evid. Code section 664) in finding an excuse for the procedural noncompliance, with the lack of a transcript of the fee hearing making it impossible for appellant to overcome that presumption.