Wife Awarded Interim Fees of $60,000 Based on “Need.”
Many times in the past, in our category “Family Law Awards,” we have surveyed “needs based” fees awards in family law matters under Family Law Code sections 2030 and 2032. The main objective is to provide fees so that one of the litigants has a fair playing field and can obtain legal representation when financial need is a chip on that litigant’s side. In the next case, wife claimed that she had a lavish lifestyle while married to her real estate developer ex-husband, with that lifestyle justifying some substantial spousal support and interim fee requests. However, the lower and appellate courts were much more temperate in what was deemed a proper “needs” award to wife, her lavishness claim notwithstanding.
In re Marriage of Pitto and Behrendt, Case No. A120858 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 25, 2009) (unpublished) concerned a wife and husband embroiled in disputes involving spousal support and wife’s “needs”-based fee request of an interim nature. Wife wanted temporary spousal support of $90,000 per month (yes, you read right) in order “to maintain the lifestyle she was accustomed to during the marriage.” She also requested an interim fee award of $250,000 in attorney’s fees and $75,000 in expert fees (yep, you read that part correctly also) at the start of the case. In turn, husband claimed wife was only entitled to $100,000 per year under a post-marital agreement (PMA) and needed only $18,000-22,500 in legal fees to adjudicate the validity of the PMA. Wildly different factual information was presented by each side to the family law judge. The lower court eventually awarded wife a tax-free $18,000 per month in temporary spousal support and an interim payment of $60,000 for attorney’s fees.
Obviously feeling that these rulings slighted her “accustomed” lifestyle standard, the miffed wife went on to appeal the rulings.
She did not succeed.
The family law judge awarded wife $60,000 in fees at the early stage and indicated it would award further necessary fees “as the case progresses.” Given that the temporary support hearing is intended to be quick in nature and the PMA validity would be the prime issue litigated first, the appellate panel did not find that the interim award was an abuse of discretion. Wife mainly criticized the “incremental approach” used by the lower court in awarding interim fees, but the reviewing panel found that this approach—one based on experience about the amount necessary to litigate at an early juncture—was not unreasonable in nature.