Both Sides Spent A Ton; Both Sides Had Income to Fight; Both Sides Got What They Got After Seven Years Of Litigation. Needs-based fees under Family Code sections 2030 and 2032 have to be based on a consideration of the total circumstances. Some litigants ignore this basic reality, but Ettenger v. Ettenger, Case No. […]
Preemptive Sanction Order Reversed, Although Court Of Appeal Was Sympathetic To What Family Law Judge Was Attempting To Do. In the acrimonious dissolution case of Marriage of Richards, Case No. G056626 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 9, 2020) (unpublished), ex-wife continually interrupted the family law judge and filed 11 matters in one month, prompting
Not Improper To Factor In Ex-Wife’s Parents’ Significant Funding Of Litigation. In Marriage of Janssens, Case No. C085986 (3d Dist. Dec. 26, 2019) (unpublished), ex-wife and ex-husband were engaged in a contentious dissolution battle over child custody issues relating to their son. Earlier, a family law judge had ordered ex-wife to pay ex-husband $15,000
Husband Devoted The Majority Of His Time To A Failing Cycling Apparel Business, And Although Wife Had More Income From Sources Designed For The Care Of The Couple’s Disabled Child, She Also Had More Expenses Than Husband. Husband in Marriage of Castia, Case No. A155088 (1st Dist., Div. 1 December 2, 2019) (unpublished)
Res Judicata Ground For Denial Was Not Borne Out Because Earlier Three Denials Were Without Prejudice. Marriage of Uriostegui and Maffei, Case No. B289948 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 23, 2019) (unpublished) demonstrates that sometimes the fourth time is the charm. What happened in this dissolution case is that a family law commissioner,
Trial Judge Failed To Focus On What Husband Had Spent As Well As Failed To Appreciate Ex-Wife Was Both A Respondent And Cross-Appellant. The 4/1 DCA in Marriage of Fiore & Jimenez, Case No. D074927 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 20, 2019) (unpublished) reversed a $5,000 Family Code section 2020 “needs based” fees award
Ex-Wife Prevented Ex-Husband’s Access To His Lawyer Such That Conservatorship Had To Be Established, And Wife Had Ability To Pay From Her Divorce Equalization Payment. A family law judge concluded in Marriage of Henkel, Case No. H044147 (6th Dist. Dec. 12, 2019) (unpublished) that ex-wife should be assessed with Family Code section 271 sanctions
Trial Court Failed To Consider Any Actual Evidence And Based Its Decision Solely On Argument Of Counsel and Unsworn Statements. In Marriage of Pasco, Case No. C085721 (3d Dist., November 25, 2019) (published), husband requested an order terminating spousal support based on wife’s new job and increased monthly income. To support his request,
She Had More Assets/Wealth After Dissolutions Rulings And Future Payments By Husband Which Meant She Should Pay Her Attorneys When She Recoups! Ex-wife was probably not happy that her Family Code sections 2030/2032 “needs based” attorney’s fees request was denied again in Marriage of Restaino, Case No. G054778 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 14,
Appellate Court Implored That Appealing Ex-Husband Get Beyond Past Dissolution Disputes. Marriage of Dodson, Case No. E070719 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 12, 2019) (unpublished) is an interesting acrimonious dissolution case where husband and wife went back and forth in a marriage where only a finite of assets/income were at issue. (Sound familiar?)
