Cases: Family Law

Discovery, Family Law: $165,188.75 Needs-Based Award To Ex-Wife Reversed Because Lower Court Failed To Consider Whether Her Discovery Efforts Were Unreasonable Or Over Litigated

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Family Law

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                Tragni v. Tragni, Case No. A169130 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 12, 2025) (unpublished) is one of those rare cases where a needs-based family law award to an ex-wife was reversed for an abuse of discretion.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 […]

Appealability, Family Law: Denial Of 2030 Request For Fees, Pendency On Appeal, Could Not Result In A Subsequent Request Involving The Same Facts

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Family Law

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 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 30, 2025) (unpublished) confirms that an appellate court is divested of jurisdiction from considering an appeal of a subsequent Family Code section 2030 fee award where the same

Family Law: Denial Of Needs-Based Family Code Section 2030 Fees Reversed Because Lower Court Made No Findings Of Ability To Pay

Cases: Family Law

Consideration Of Equitable Factors Other Than Disparity and Ability To Pay Are Not Allowable Under Section 2030.                In Marriage of Saedi v. Kadivar, Case No. B340089 (2d Dist., Div. 2 June 23, 2025) (unpublished), the lower court denied a Family Code section 2030 needs-based fee request by ex-wife in connection with child support modification

Deadlines, Family Law: Ex-Wife’s Challenge To $193,000 In Attorney’s Fees Under Family Code Section 271 Or Contractual Marital Stipulation Fee Clause Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Family Law

Although Notice Of Motion For Appellate Fees Was Untimely, Record Showed That The Lower Court Granted An Extension Request To Ex-Husband As Moving Party.                In Marriage of Richards, Case Nos. G062449 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 13, 2025) (unpublished), ex-wife appealed a Family Code section 271 sanctions and contractual marital stipulation fee

Family Law: $50,000 § 271 Sanctions Order Against Wife And Denial Of Her § 271 Sanctions Request Against Husband Both Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Family Law

Section 271 Sanctions Order Against Her Not Tethered To Expenses, And Her Denied Sanctions Request Was Properly Raised Through A Responsive Declaration To A Different Motion Not Seeking Sanctions.                In Marriage of Kapila and Deshmukh, Case No. A170589 (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 3, 2025) (unpublished), wife was hit with a $50,000 sanctions award

Appeal Sanctions, Costs, Family Law: Although Prevailing Party On Appeal Entitled To Costs, There Was No Bases For Appeal Attorney’s Fees Or Appellate Sanctions

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Costs, Cases: Family Law

Sanctions Award Under Family Code Section 271 Was Defective Because Prevailing Party Failed To Give Notice Of Seeking This Relief.                In Marriage of Terry, Case No. B334907 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 21, 2025) (unpublished), a prevailing party on appeal was awarded three components by the lower court:  (1) routine costs; (2) $23,587.20 in

Family Law: 2/6 DCA Affirms Trial Court’s Conclusion That Monthly Payments To Father From Indian Tribe’s General Welfare Program Is Income That Can Be Considered In Calculating Child Support And Needs-Based Attorney Fees Obligations

Cases: Family Law

Indian Tribe’s General Welfare Program Payments To Father, Who Has An Annual Salary Exceeding $100,000 Per Year, Were Not Need Based.             In Pateras v. Armenta, Case No. B336065 (2d Dist., Div. 6 February 27, 2025) (published), the 2/6 DCA affirmed the lower court’s conclusion that the monthly payments father receives from Indian Tribe’s general

Family Law: Section 271 Sanctions Denial Dismissed As An Interlocutory Order But Section 2030 Needs-Based Denial Reversed Because The Request Was Adequately Supported

Cases: Family Law

Unpublished Case Has A Nice Discussion On Why A Section 271 Sanctions Denial Is Not A Collateral Order.                Unpublished opinions frequently have good discussions on legal issues, which is the case on whether a denial of a Family Code sections 271 request is a collateral order which is immediately appealable.                In Marriage of

Family Law: Lower Court’s Denial Off Needs-Based Fees Based On Ruling That Wife Was Barred From Enforcing Marital Settlement Agreement By Laches Was Erroneous

Cases: Family Law

Laches Ruling Needed To Be Revisited.                In Marriage of Goldman, Case No. D082021 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 10, 2025) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished), ex-husband and ex-wife entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA) which wife claimed was breached and then asked for needs-based fees and costs to enforce it.  The lower court

Scroll to Top