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 The Fourth District, Division Two, in Marriage of Hull, Case No. E072222 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 15, 2020) (unpublished) was a 3-0 […]
Self-Represented Ex-Husband Learned The Hard Way That Uncooperative Conduct, Unduly Delaying Resolution, And Refusal To Participate In RFO Hearing Can Be Incredibly Costly – And This Was On Top Of $13,200 In Sanctions Already Issued Against Him Earlier In This Case. In Marriage of Ehirim, Case No. E072397 (4th Dist., Div. 2 September
Besides, Ex-Husband’s Jackson Credit Motion Had Sound Factual/Legal Bases. In Marriage of Siva, Case No. A157554 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 25, 2020) (published), ex-husband was granted a Jackson child support credit, even though the trial judge denied dueling Family Code section 271 sanctions requests filed by both sides. Ex-wife appealed the merits and
Recorded Supported Award, Plus She Had $343,000 Net Worth—Ability To Pay. In In re Marriage of Gagliano, Case Nos. B284308 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 20, 2020) (unpublished), ex-wife suffered an adverse award of $75,000 in Family Code section 271 sanctions. The record showed that she presented altered emails to a doctor
Result Is Close To A “Wash.” In In re Ankola, Case Nos. H045092 et al. (6th Dist. Aug. 12, 2020) (published), ex-spouses got involved in some nullity/domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) actions—actually two DVRO actions against each—with mixed success on the DVRO proceedings. At the end of the day, ex-wife lost the first one,
Husband’s $189,391 In Bitcoin Transactions, Made After Wife Filed Petition For Dissolution, Were A Breach Of His Fiduciary Duty And In Violation Of The ATROS. In Marriage of DeSouza, Case No. A156311 (1st Dist., Div. 3 August 10, 2020) (unpublished), wife learned for the first time, after entry of the dissolution judgment, that husband
Borson Challenge Rejected, With Record Showing Disparity In Assets Between Former Spouses. In Marriage of Swain, Case No. G058117 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 3, 2020) (unpublished), ex-wife’s attorney was awarded $5,700 in Family Code section 2030 fees, payable by ex-husband to ex-wife, after her current attorney filed a request but was substituted out
If You Assert Inability To Pay, Make Sure You Have The Proper Ammunition! We have to say, if you are going to appeal needs-based fee awards under Family Code sections 2030/2032 or sanctions under Family Code section 271 based on inability to pay, you better do the math and convincingly show the appellate court
The Trial Court Erred In Its Interpretation Of Family Code §§ 1101 And 2107. In Marriage of Yiu and Liu, Case No. B293754 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 17, 2020) (unpublished), husband appealed the trial court’s award of attorney fees to his wife under Family Code § 1101(g) and its denial of his
Sanctions Do Not Need A Precise Correlation To Sanctioned Conduct And The Specific Fees. In Lebid-Jurtschyk v. Lebid-Jurtschyk, Case No. B300370 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 25, 2020) (unpublished), ex-husband was hit with Family Code section 271 sanctions for insisting on too high of a listing price for a house, not signing documents to
