Cases: Family Law

Family Law: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s $50,000 Award To Husband In Interim Needs-Based Attorney Fees Where Wife Has A Permanent Restraining Order Against Husband And Claims Of Domestic Violence

Cases: Family Law

Nothing In Family Code Section 2030 Absolutely Prohibits A Trial Court From Awarding Interim Attorney Fees Where There Is Documented Evidence Of A History Of Domestic Abuse.             In Marriage of Sangha, Case No. D077062 (4th Dist., Div. 1 February 22, 2021) (unpublished), wife was not happy when the trial court awarded her husband –

Family Law: $75,000 Breach-Of-Fiduciary Duty Sanction Under Family Code Section 1101(g) Reversed Based On Lack Of Competent Evidence

Cases: Family Law

Make Sure Your Supporting Evidence Gets Properly Admitted, With Judicial Notice Not Likely To Get The Job Done!             The Fifth District in Marriage of Patterson, Case No. F076753 (5th Dist. Feb. 9, 2021) (unpublished) reversed a Family Code section 1101(g) $75,000 sanctions award—mainly for attorney’s fees—in favor of ex-husband and against ex-wife.  The reason

Family Law, Sanctions: Trial Court’s Award To Attorney Husband Of $800 In Attorney Fees In The Nature Of Sanctions Under Section 271 Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

Self-Represented Attorney Husband Incurred No Fees To Which The Section 271 Sanctions Must Be Tethered.             Family Code § 271, subdivision (a), provides that “the court may base an award of attorney’s fees and costs on the extent to which the conduct of each party or attorney furthers or frustrates the policy of the law

Family Law: Lower Court’s Failure To Specifically Make Explicit Findings Under Family Code Section 2030 As To Ex-Wife’s Needs-Based Request Necessitated A Remand

Cases: Family Law

Equivocal Reasoning That Wife “Might Prevail In A 2030 Argument, But Certainly Not Prevail Under A 271 Argument” Was Too Cryptic An Explanation.             In order to level the dissolution playing field where one spouse has a greater access to financial resources (so as to pay attorneys and forensic accountants), Family Code section 2030 allows

Family Law: $1,225 Section 271 Sanctions Award Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Family Law

No Due Process Was Satisfied And Ex-Husband Had No Ability To Pay.             Family law practitioners should pay attention to Mar v. Ligne, Case No. A158768 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 16, 2020) (unpublished) with respect to what needs to be done to sustain a Family Code section 271 sanctions award.             The 271 sanctions

Family Law: In DVRO Proceeding Where Ex-Husband Put Child Custody Issues In Potential Dispute, Lower Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Awarding $80,000 In Family Code Section 2030 Fees To Ex-Wife

Cases: Family Law

Interestingly Enough, Ex-Husband Did Obtain DVRO Against Ex-Wife Involving Three Sons.             The next case, Yurasek v. Kesala, Case No. A158859 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 2, 2020) (unpublished), is an interesting reminder to be careful what box you check in family law forms.  If you go broad and check some boxes for wide relief,

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

Scroll to Top