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 In In re Marriage of Karen & Jason H., Case No. E068153 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 21, 2019) (unpublished), among other things, wife was awarded some attorney’s fees (all in all, totaling $275,000) against husband.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style, summed up the “end result” in Marriage of Anka & Yeager, Case No. B289610 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 19, 2019) (unpublished) this way: “A party cannot be sanctioned twice for the same misconduct.”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 In Marriage of Charchian & Mahgereftech, Case No. B270201 (2d Dist., Div. 2 July 31, 2019) (unpublished), ex-wife let a dissolution case languish for five years, went through multiple attorneys, eventually had a judge conclude she was entitled to very little
Section 271 Sanctions Can Only Be Awarded Against A Party; Proper Remedy Is To Seek CCP § 128.5 Sanctions Against Counsel. A family law judge assessed Family Code section 271 sanctions of $1,000 against ex-husband’s attorney. That award was reversed in Martinez-Huff v. Huff, Case No. B284241 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 18, 2019)
CCP § 2023.040 Was The Key Statutory Provision. Just to show you that technicalities can matter in the discovery area, the First District, Division 2 reversed a $2,500 discovery sanction against ex-wife in Marriage of Stupp v. Schilders, Case No. A154396 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 10, 2019) (unpublished). What happened is that a
Evidence in Record Did Suggest Ex-Wife Had Disparity In Ability to Pay. In Huynh v. Cao, Case No. A154556 (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 27, 2019) (unpublished), the 1/4 DCA had to review several fee/sanctions awards and rulings in a dissolution matter. First of all, it reversed a $37,679.50 fee award to ex-husband because
More Nuanced, Granular Analysis Required Under The Circumstances. In re Marriage of Ciprari, 32 Cal.App.5th 83 (2d Dist., Div. 1) (2019) is an important case both for the type of expert testimony which can be allowed in “tracing” cases as well as holding that needs-based fees can be allowed to a litigant having access
Record Showed She Went Through A Lot Of Attorneys And Rejected Initial Settlement Offers Which Were Within The Realm Of The Ultimate Outcomes In The Dissolution Case. In Marriage of Santore, Case No. G055121 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 21, 2019) (unpublished), ex-wife was denied a request for $193,223.43 in attorney’s fees based on
Losing Party’s Right To Live Testimony Under Family Code Section 217 Is Forfeited Unless Party Requests Party To Appear At Hearing. The 4/1 DCA, in Marriage of George & Deamon, Case No. D073667 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 17, 2019) (published), decided that a trial judge can decide a Family Code section 271 sanction
Rub Here Was That Trial Judge Stayed Any Fee Ruling Pending Determination Of Merits Appeal. Although procedurally different in nature, Marriage of Haghighat, Case No. G054993 (4th Dist., Div. 3 April 17, 2019) (unpublished) demonstrates how family law judges and appellate justices can impose attorney’s fees and frivolous appeal sanctions when a litigant hides marital
