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 In Marriage of Ward, Case No. A156599 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 29, 2020) (unpublished), ex-husband appealed a $24,000 needs-based fee award under Family Code sections 2020/2032.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 In Marriage of Burns, Case No. H046858 (6th Dist., April 17, 2020) (unpublished), a husband with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
The 4th District Ordered A Remand, However, To Allow The Lower Court To Review The Award To Ensure It Is Limited Only To Attorneys’ Fees And Costs, And To Prepare An Order That Includes Information Regarding The Basis For The Sanctions Amount Family Code § 271 authorizes a court to impose attorney’s fees
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 In the acrimonious dissolution case of Marriage of Richards, Case No. G056626 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 9, 2020) (unpublished), ex-wife continually interrupted the family law judge and filed 11 matters in one month, prompting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 Dec. 26, 2019) (unpublished), ex-wife and ex-husband were engaged in a contentious dissolution battle over child custody issues relating to their son.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
