Record Showed A Disparity In Financial Conditions, With Ex-Wife’s Counsel’s Showing For The Fees Being Sufficient In Nature. In Marriage of Bridges, Case No. F088836 et al. (5th Dist. Aug. 5, 2026) (unpublished), ex-wife was awarded Family Code section 2030/2032 needs-based fees of $159,669.44 where the record showed husband had liquidated substantial assets for material […]
Ex-Husband Was The Higher Wage Earner, Such That The Record Supported Needs-Based Fees And An Award Of 271 Sanctions To Ex-Wife. Marriage of Stout, Case No. B343600 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 24, 2026) (unpublished) was a situation where an ex-husband, the higher wage earner by far, sold a motorcycle in breach of fiduciary duties,
Reversed Order Occurred Because Litigant Could Pursue Option To Present Oral Testimony Even If That Strategy Was Unsuccessful. In Marriage of Diaz and Zesati, Case Nos. 338823 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 7 July 21, 2026) (unpublished), ex-husband was assessed two Family Code section 271 sanctions awards, one for $27,000 and the other for $9,500
As A Matter Of Law, The Totality Of Circumstances Showed No Predicate For 271 Sanctions. The result in Marriage of Ortiz and Rivera, Case No. G064694 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 15, 2026) (unpublished) does not happen often, but it does show that an appellate court can review the entire record and determine that, as
Delay In Asserting An Objection To Bifurcating Trial Was Dispositive. Perceived gamesmanship can be punished; we bloggers are not the judges of whether that has happened, but we only post on what we see is decided by the courts and subject to what you readers think when reading the case. Gamesmanship, we believe, was not
Reversal As A Matter Of Law Was The Result. Ex-husband’s attorney in Forrest v. Forrest, Case No. D086281 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 8, 2026) (unpublished) had a $5,000 monetary sanction imposed for certain conduct in a marital dissolution case, exclusively assessed under Family Code section 271. That sanction order was reversed as a matter
Ex-Wife Paid Nearly Double The Amount Of Fees To Her Attorney And She Would Get Trust Loans To Pay Ex-Husband, Justifying The Family Court Award. In the area of Family Code section 2030, the end goal is to level the “playing field” for family court litigants. The next case, Marriage of Khym & Miner, Case
Marriage of Aviles Opinion Supported The Result. Marriage of Chevallier & Rodriguez, Case No. H052644 et al. (6th Dist. May 15, 2026) (unpublished) determined a litigant, who together with her boyfriend did not file Declarations of Domestic Partnership with California’s Secretary of State, was properly denied an attorney’s fees award by the lower court because
The Trial Court Was Required To Issue An Award Based On Whether Mandatory Findings Demonstrated Disparity In Access To Funds And Ability To Pay. In Marriage of Saedi v. Kadivar, Case No. B347642 (2d Dist., Div. 2 April 14, 2026) (unpublished), Visitation-seeking Grandmother appealed the trial court’s denial of her request for Family Code section
Civil Code Section 1717 Lodestar Factors Alone Do Not Restrict The Family Court In Deciding Prevailing Party Contractual Fees. Marriage of Bowman, Case No. B331924 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 3, 2026) (published) held that a family law judge can consider financial needs and ability to pay (Family Code section 2030 and 2032 factors) in
