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 Marriage of Dodson, Case No. E070719 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 12, 2019) (unpublished) is an interesting acrimonious dissolution case where husband and wife went back and forth in a marriage where only a finite of assets/income were at issue.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?) […]
Significant Disparity Between The Parties' Income And Assets Mandated The Fee Award. In In re Marriage of Gibson, Case No. B294875 (2d Dist., Div. 1 November 1, 2019) (unpublished), ex-wife sought $170,890 in Family Code §§ 2030 and 2032 needs-based attorneys fees when ex-husband, singer/actor Tyrese Gibson, moved for a move-away order to
Bank Records Showed Husband Had Monthly Non-Taxable Income of $62,896.86 In Marriage of Gu and Gao, Case Nos. B290406 and B292480 (2d Dist., Div. 1 October 28, 2019) (unpublished), couple met in Hong Kong and began living together in 2015, coming to the United States in 2016 when husband sought political asylum. They settled
FLARPLs Are Conditional, With Family Code Section 2034(c) Giving The Lower Court Discretion To Resolve Disputes Over The Propriety Of FLARPs, Including Revisiting The Propriety Of Such Liens At A Later Time. Acting Presiding Justice Yegan opened the published opinion in Marriage of Bittenson, Case No. B288233 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Oct. 22, 2019)
Family Court Did Not Award Fees Due To Wife’s Pro Per Status At The Time It Rendered Its Decision. In Marriage of Soares, Case No. F076532 (5th Dist., Sept. 26, 2019) (unpublished), Wife challenged family court’s denial of her needs-based fees request, its spousal support determination, and the judge’s failure to recuse himself
Surprise, Last-Minute Reversal In Tentative Decision Required A Reversal. Due process required a reversal of a family law judge’s decision denying a needs-based fee request by ex-wife in Marriage of Bramhall and Melvoin, Case No. B288129 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 23, 2019) (unpublished). The parties stipulated to bifurcation of a needs-based fees request,
Fifth District’s Morton Decision Found Persuasive To The 4/1 DCA. The Fourth District, Division 1 in Marriage of Bustillo, Case No. D075369 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 12, 2019) (unpublished) reversed a $10,000 “needs-based” fee award to ex-wife under Family Code section 2030 and 2032 for a multiday support hearing. The reason was that
Wife Prevailed In Obtaining Certain DVRO Orders Which Justified Mandatory Fees. In In re Marriage of Karen & Jason H., Case No. E068153 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 21, 2019) (unpublished), among other things, wife was awarded some attorney’s fees (all in all, totaling $275,000) against husband. However, some related to her winning domestic
“A Party Cannot Be Sanctioned Twice For the Same Misconduct.” Presiding Justice Gilbert, who has a unique writing style, summed up the “end result” in Marriage of Anka & Yeager, Case No. B289610 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 19, 2019) (unpublished) this way: “A party cannot be sanctioned twice for the same misconduct.”
Languishing Nature Of Case And Ex-Wife’s Debt To Ex-Husband Figured In The Result. In Marriage of Charchian & Mahgereftech, Case No. B270201 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 31, 2019) (unpublished), ex-wife let a dissolution case languish for five years, went through multiple attorneys, eventually had a judge conclude she was entitled to very little
