Based On Trial Court’s Analysis Under Family Code § 4320, Husband Lacked The Financial Ability To Afford His Own Attorney Much Less Contribute To Wife’s Attorney Fees. Family Code § 2030 provides California family law courts authority to level the playing field in dissolution actions, where sufficient disparity exists between the parties in […]
1. Marriage of Harcke, Case No. B288727 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 16, 2020) (unpublished). In this case, father was sanctioned for $15,400 in attorney’s fees for failure to be cooperative in settlement negotiations under Family Code section 271. That was no abuse of discretion given that he “out of hand” and
The Appellate Court Has No Jurisdiction To Review A Discovery Order. Petitioner father and respondent mother in Minasian v. Katz, Case No. A158517 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 11, 2020) (unpublished) were involved an incredibly protracted action – dating back to 2004 – regarding their child who was born the year before.
Nothing Showed Any Error In The Lump Sum Payment, The Monthly Payments, Or Still Ordering Them Even Though Ex-Wife Was Cohabitating With Someone Else! We have posted, very frequently, on Family Code section 2030 “needs-based” awards to spouses, which are pendente lite awards to spouses with financial disparity needing an award during a dissolution
First District Was Not Persuaded By Husband’s Claim That The Sanctions Equated To 30% Of His Total Net Worth. Husband in Lacourciere v. Lacourciere, Case No. A155881 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 1, 2020) (unpublished) appealed a $30,000 Family Code § 271 sanctions award assessed against him to the benefit of his Wife.
Even If Explanations Could Have Been Clearer, No Prejudice Shown By Appealing Ex-Wife. Presence of prejudice is a critical factor in any appeal. The next case, Marriage of Effner, Case No. D074478 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 18, 2020) (unpublished), so demonstrates. There, ex-wife—who was found by the lower court to have diverted
Purpose Of These Sanctions Is To Spur Candidness Between Parties To Dissolution Action. In Marriage of Gutierrez, Case No. B291507 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 6, 2020) (published), among other things, father was sanctioned under Family Code §§ 1101(g) [fee sanctions against spouse violating fiduciary duty of disclosing assets] and 271 [sanctions for prolonging
Record Below Did Not Show The Trial Judge Imposed It In Retribution Against Ex-Husband. In Marriage of Ward, Case No. A156599 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 29, 2020) (unpublished), ex-husband appealed a $24,000 needs-based fee award under Family Code sections 2020/2032. His only challenge on appeal was that the lower court imposed this award
Husband Failed To Meet His Burden In Showing Abuse Of Discretion Where Trial Court Considered All Evidence Presented, Husband Had Significant Financial Resources, And Wife’s Needs-Based Fee Payments To Husband Accounted For 45% Of His Total Fees. In Marriage of Burns, Case No. H046858 (6th Dist., April 17, 2020) (unpublished), a husband with
Rather, Laches Govern Whether the Section 271 Sanctions Motions Were Timely. George v. Shams-Shirazi, Case No. A155158 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 11, 2020) (published) dealt with a $13,000 “sanctions” award against a litigant under Family Code section 271, which allows a family law judge great latitude to award attorney’s fees and costs against
