Case Remanded To Reconsider The 2030 Fee Request (Including If Fees Were Appropriate); Fees Were Properly Denied Under Family Code Section 3557 Relating To Child Support Enforcement.
Marriage of Trousset and Kelley, Case No. A172398 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 4, 2026) (published), is an interesting opinion on the need to make express findings on the Family Code section 2030 “level-the-playing” field statute based on a financial disparity gap, with the appellate court admitting it was a close call whether the failure to make express findings was prejudicial error—although it ultimately concluded this was the case. The key takeaway for us is that there is a difference between a disparity of assets versus a disparity of relative access to funds (with the latter consideration being the proper one under section 2030).
This dissolution case was quite contentious because ex-husband was a lucrative investment banker/company principal and ex-wife was a CPA who quit working when the couple had children. After 16 years of marriage, ex-husband filed a divorce petition. Before the dispute at issue in the divorce proceeding, ex-husband obtained a DVRO against ex-wife for stalking, with ex-wife paying ex-husband for attorney’s fees relating to that proceeding. Eventually, a marital settlement agreement (MSA) was reached in the divorce, under which ex-wife obtained substantial payments and with the parties reaching a child support add-on protocol tied to ex-husband’s earnings. Post-MSA, the parties got into court disputes over the add-on child support issues, sparking ex-wife to ask for $95,000 in incurred fees and $80,000 in anticipated future fees against ex-husband under Family Code sections 2030 and 3557 (section 3557 allowing attorney’s fees to a party seeking to enforce a child support order). After the family law judge issued a tentative acknowledging that there was a disparity in assets in ex-husband’s favor, a hearing was held, resulting in the lower court’s denial of ex-wife’s 2030 and 3557 fee requests. The lower court reasoned that (1) although there was a disparity in assets, ex-wife did not demonstrate financial need; (2) she had $10 million in liquid assets; (3) she over-litigated the case; and (4) she spent $522,000 versus ex-husband’s expenditure of $284,000 of fees on post-MSA matters. Ex-wife appealed the denial of fee requests to the First District Court of Appeal.
The First District reversed and remanded as to the 2030 fee request. With respect to the 3557 fee request, ex-wife had no fee entitlement because ex-husband’s opposition to a child support modification request was not the equivalent of an action to enforce a child support order, the predicate for 3557 fee entitlement. Although admittedly close, the 2030 issue garnered a different result. Division 3 decided that there were failures to make express findings on disparities as to relative access to funds (different than disparity of assets) and as to ability to pay, with there being a reasonable chance the result could have been different if these findings were made. The matter was remanded to make the requisite express findings; and, if they supported a 2033 request, to then determine what fees were appropriate under the circumstances.