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 In Marriage of Yiu and Liu, Case No. B293754 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 17, 2020) (unpublished), husband appealed the trial court’s award of attorney fees to his wife under Family Code § 1101(g) and its denial of his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 In Lebid-Jurtschyk v. Lebid-Jurtschyk, Case No. B300370 (2d Dist., Div. 4 June 25, 2020) (unpublished), ex-husband was hit with Family Code section 271 sanctions for insisting on too high of a listing price for a house, not signing documents to
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 Marriage of Harcke, Case No. B288727 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 16, 2020) (unpublished).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 Petitioner father and respondent mother in Minasian v. Katz, Case No. A158517 (1st Dist., Div. 2 June 11, 2020) (unpublished) were involved an incredibly protracted action – dating back to 2004 – regarding their child who was born the year before.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 Husband in Lacourciere v. Lacourciere, Case No. A155881 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 1, 2020) (unpublished) appealed a $30,000 Family Code § 271 sanctions award assessed against him to the benefit of his Wife.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
