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 Oct. 16, 2025) (unpublished) found that an appeal of a Family Code section 271 sanctions award of $5,000 was not appealable under CCP […]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 Tragni v. Tragni, Case No. A169130 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Aug. 12, 2025) (unpublished) is one of those rare cases where a needs-based family law award to an ex-wife was reversed for an abuse of discretion.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 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 30, 2025) (unpublished) confirms that an appellate court is divested of jurisdiction from considering an appeal of a subsequent Family Code section 2030 fee award where the same
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 In Marriage of Saedi v. Kadivar, Case No. B340089 (2d Dist., Div. 2 June 23, 2025) (unpublished), the lower court denied a Family Code section 2030 needs-based fee request by ex-wife in connection with child support modification
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 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 13, 2025) (unpublished), ex-wife appealed a Family Code section 271 sanctions and contractual marital stipulation fee
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 In Marriage of Kapila and Deshmukh, Case No. A170589 (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 3, 2025) (unpublished), wife was hit with a $50,000 sanctions award
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
Financial Need Analysis Needed To Be Fine Tuned. In Marriage of Hernandez, Case No. G062386 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 17, 2025) (unpublished), Justice Delaney on behalf of a 3-0 panel reversed and remanded a $7,500 needs-based fee award to ex-wife when her attorney only said he charged her a flat $5,000. The ultimate
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
