It Also Has A Good Discussion of the Difference Between Holdings and Dicta.
Although not involving fee issues, we had to share two aspects of Justice Yegan’s eloquently written opinion in Marriage of Boswell, Case No. B249141 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 28, 2014) (published).
The first aspect was a summary of appellate review standards. “Mother has no appreciation for the rules on appeal, i.e. the substantial evidence rule and the rules relating to the exercise of discretion by the trial court and the review thereof by the Court of Appeal. (Estate of Gilkison, [] 65 Cal.App.4th [1443,] at pp.1448-1449) These rules are well known. They need not be repeated. We hold that, where, as here, the family law court makes a fair and equitable ruling on contested issues of fact, its express or implied factual determinations, are binding on appeal. The appellate court may not substitute its discretion for that of the trial court unless the appellant can demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the trial court’s judgment is arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or exceeds the bounds of reason. (Id. at pp. l448- l449.)” At another point, he wrote: “We do not judge credibility on appeal. An adverse factual finding is a poor platform upon which to predicate reversible error. ([Marriage of Greenberg (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1095,] at p. 1097.) ‘We sit as a court [of law] to review errors of law and not [claimed] errors of fact.’ (Achen v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. (1951) 105 Cal.App.2d 113, 125.)”
The second aspect is a nice discussion of the difference between holdings and dicta—you will enjoy it.