Case Held That Not Stipulating To Legal Separation On Religious Grounds And Not Particularizing Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Request Led To A Reversal. On February 20, 2026, we posted on Marriage of Hoch, Case No. G063467 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished), which held that Family Code section 271 sanctions were not […]
His Failure To Stipulate Did Not Show Bad Faith Under The Circumstances And The Awarded Sanctions Were Not Tethered To Any Specific Conduct. Family Code section 271 does allow for monetary “sanctions” against a family law litigant who tries to not foster resolution and makes the proceedings more expensive. However, they are not a general
Lack Of Family Code Section 2030 Findings Constituted An Abuse Of Discretion. In Marriage of Tran and Ha, Case No. G064047 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished), ex-wife’s requests for two sets of fees (which were denied) did not result in a relook on appeal, but her request for non-appellate, needs-based fees had
Ex-Wife Did Substantially Comply Before The 2030 Hearing, With Husband Stipulating To A Disparity. In Marriage of Stewart, Case No. B339569 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 30, 2026) (unpublished), ex-wife sought two tranches of Family Code section 2030 “needs-based” fees because she was hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to her divorce attorney for
One $42,169.75 Component Of The Fee Award Was Remanded For Restudy, With the Remainder Of The $204,682.97 Award Affirmed, Although It Could Be Offset By Amounts Ex-Husband Owes To Ex-Wife. Family law proceedings can be messy. Domestic violence (DVRA) proceedings often are brought, with the nonprevailing party facing exposure for fees and costs under certain
General Ability To Pay Findings Were Not Sufficient. In Manning v. Manning, Case No. D084718 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 12, 2025) (unpublished), a contentious divorce case with lots of activity, a lower court—mainly out of frustration—denied ex-wife’s request for a Family Code section 2030 fee award of $200,000 for fees and $50,000 in expert
They Did Not Exceed The $5,000 Threshold Under CCP § 904.1(a)(12), And They Cannot Be Aggregated With Prior Sanctions To Reach The Appealable Threshold. Lin v. Chao, Case No. H052699 (6th Dist. Oct. 16, 2025) (unpublished) found that an appeal of a Family Code section 271 sanctions award of $5,000 was not appealable under CCP
Reversal Resulted In A Reinstatement Of A $75,000 Fee Award To Ex-Wife. Although new trial motion grants in California are usually governed by an abuse of discretion standard, that changes where no statement of reasons is issued: in that situation, the party seeking to uphold the order bears the burden of persuasion and review of the
Record Below Showed The Lower Court Pulled The Trigger Too Fast. Tragni v. Tragni, Case No. A169130 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 12, 2025) (unpublished) is one of those rare cases where a needs-based family law award to an ex-wife was reversed for an abuse of discretion. We now explore why. Ex-wife received
The First Fee Award Appeal Divested Appellate Court Of Jurisdiction On Second Award. Weaklend v. Weaklend, Case Nos. D086167 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 30, 2025) (unpublished) confirms that an appellate court is divested of jurisdiction from considering an appeal of a subsequent Family Code section 2030 fee award where the same
