Cases: Family Law

Family Law: Husband’s Intentional Tort Exposure Not Benefitting Community Was Properly Borne By Him, As Well As Wife’s/Related LLC’s Legal Fees To Successfully Defend Tort Suit

Cases: Family Law

Family Code Section 1000 Governed The Result.              In Marriage of Duncan and Tejpaul, Case No. G056998 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 1, 2020) (unpublished), husband unilaterally purchased a restaurant with third parties while married to wife, with the third parties suing husband, wife, and a related LLC for certain intentional torts.  Third parties won […]

Appealability, Family Law: Trial Court’s Denial of Wife’s § 2030 Appellate Attorney Fees Reversed And Remanded For Consideration, But Appeal Of Denial Of Her Requested § 271 Sanctions For Appellate Attorney Fees Dismissed

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Family Law

Trial Court Abused Its Discretion By Denying Wife’s Need-Based Fees Request Until Completion Of Litigation, Where Such Request Requires Decision Within 15 Days Of The Hearing That Reflects Consideration Of Statutory Factors, But Trial Court’s Denial Of Requested Sanctions Until Completion Of Litigation Within Its Discretion.             In Marriage of Franecke and Melkonian, Case

Family Law, Sanctions: Sixth District Affirms $75,000 In § 271 Sanctions Against Ex-Wife With Mental Health Issues And Denial Of Her § 2030 Needs-Based Attorney Fees Request Despite Trial Court’s Failure To Make Express Findings

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

Wife Failed To Take Advantage Of Protections Afforded To Parties Suffering Mental Health Issues And She Suffered No Prejudice When Trial Court Failed To Make Express Findings Because It Considered And Addressed The Same Statutory Factors In Determining Spousal Support.             Under California Rules of Court, Rule 1.100, parties can seek accommodations from the

Family Law: Ex-Wife’s $100,000 Needs-Based Fees Request, Where Husband Had Lots Of Expenses And Her Request Made At Eleventh Hour, Was Properly Denied

Cases: Family Law

Timing, Circumstances, And Nature Of Request Are All Key Concerns In This Area.             In Marriage of Tearse, Case Nos. A155541/A156019 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 21, 2020) (unpublished), ex-wife was not pleased when the family judge denied her needs-based fee request for $100,000.  The problem was she did not defeat the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard

Family Law: Where Ex-Husband’s Living Expenses Made Him Unable To Pay Requested Needs-Based Fees Of $100,000, They Were Properly Denied To Ex-Wife

Cases: Family Law

No Oral Hearing Was Required On Needs-Based Request And Denial Of Ex Parte Request, Which Was Never Ruled On Anyway, Was Nonprejudicial.             Ex-wife brought a last-minute request for $100,000 in needs-based attorney’s fees after resting her case-in-chief because she needed some more expert help and money for her attorney’s closing argument.  The lower court

Family Law: Ex-Husband’s Denial Of Fees Based On Lack Of Jurisdiction Was Correct Where Fee Request Not Made In Responsive Pleadings Or Requested In A Motion To Leave To Amend Pleadings At The Time Of Trial

Cases: Family Law

Make A Motion To Amend Pleadings, Or Get The Result Here!             Marriage of Fader, Case No. B296972 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 24, 2020) (unpublished) is a situation teaching that a litigant should make a motion to amend deficient pleadings in order to preserve an attorney’s fee request.    If not, the consequences are dire: 

Appealability, Family Law, Sanctions: $5,000 Sanctions Award Against Ex-Husband’s Attorney Found Not Appealable

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

Specific Appealability Provisions Governed The Result.             In Marriage of Rattan & Prasad, Case No. A157880 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 24, 2020) (unpublished), ex-husband’s attorney was disqualified and was assessed with a CCP §§ 128.5/128.7 sanctions motion of $5,000 for filing frivolous motions.  Attorney’s appeal of the sanctions order was unsuccessful because (1) CCP

Family Law, Sanctions: Section 271 Sanctions Affirmed But CCP § 128.7 Sanctions For Reconsideration Motion Reversed Based On Lack Of Appropriate Procedural Compliance

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

Failure To Follow 128.7 Procedural Requirements Doomed Part Of Sanctions Award.             CCP § 128.7 sanctions are procedural in nature and rule bound.  Do not follow the procedural rules, and you will lose a sanctions order in the lower court.  Marriage of Nott, Case No. B293055 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 16, 2020) (unpublished), is

Family Law, Sanctions: $4,290 Sanctions Against Wife’s Attorney Under CCP § 128.7 Reversed On Two Grounds

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

First, A Section 2030 Earlier Denial Request Is Not Subject To Reconsideration Limitations, And Husband Did Not Give Proper Section 128.7 Notice Of The Bases For Sanctions—Double Whammy Reversal On Appeal.             The Fourth District, Division Two, in Marriage of Hull, Case No. E072222 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 15, 2020) (unpublished) was a 3-0

Scroll to Top