Cases: Family Law

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 A155541/A156019 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 21, 2020) (unpublished), ex-wife was not pleased when the family judge denied her needs-based fee request for $100,000.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             Marriage of Fader, Case No. B296972 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 24, 2020) (unpublished) is a situation teaching that a litigant should make a motion to amend deficient pleadings in order to preserve an attorney’s fee request.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             In Marriage of Rattan & Prasad, Case No. A157880 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 24, 2020) (unpublished), ex-husband’s attorney was disqualified and was assessed with a CCP §§ 128.5/128.7 sanctions motion of $5,000 for filing frivolous motions.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

Family Law, Sanctions: 4/2 DCA Affirms $29,993 In Family Code §§ 271 and 2030 Sanctions Issued Against Ex-Husband, Plus Another $3,892.50 In Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2(a) Fees And Costs For Ex-Wife’s Successful Motion To Quash

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

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

Family Law: Ex-Wife Properly Denied Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Because Financial Need Is Irrelevant

Cases: Family Law

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

Family Law: In Two Contentious DVRO Actions, Ex-Husband’s Prior Attorney’s Fees Order, Which Was Rescinded, Was Reversed, Although Ex-Wife’s Fee Award Was Affirmed

Cases: Family Law

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,

Scroll to Top