Unpublished Decision Unremarkably Affirms Section 271 Sanctions and Awards Appellate Sanctions, But Remarkably Does Approve of “Estimated” Future Fee Approach in Fee Contests.
The next decision we survey is not remarkable for its results: it affirmed a Family Code section 271 sanctions award of $9,500 and then imposed appellate sanctions of $7,500 for a frivolous appeal against a pro. per. litigant. Read on to find what we find interesting about Marriage of Parker, Case No. D053213 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 22, 2009) (unpublished).
Pro per litigant challenged the amount of the sanctions because some of the fees listed in the substantiating attorney fee declaration were based on time estimates for work that had not yet been completed. (BLOG OBSERVATION—Co-contributor Mike notes that this is how he was taught to do it at the very first law firm he was affiliated with in downtown Los Angeles in the early 1980s.) The “estimated” fees for future work totaled about $2,840 of the requested sanctions, with an hour estimate also given for the projected future tasks. The Court of Appeal found no abuse of discretion in awarding fees for this future work, finding that nothing showed the time estimations were excessive and that the attorney further performed additional work that was not even set forth in the time estimations.
Based on this decision, practicing litigators have some solace that the “estimated future fee” approach will be accepted by both trial and appellate jurists in fee proceedings.