Trial Judge Is Presumed To Follow The Law In Lines With His/Her Official Duties. We have posted many times that it would be a good (if not mandatory) idea to have a reporter present for discretionary fee award proceedings. The Third District, in line with other sister court courts (especially the Second District, Division […]
Opinion Demonstrates That Fees Must Be Specifically Targeted To Independent Conduct Not Previously Sanctioned And To Conduct For Which Due Process Concerns Are Honored. In Marriage of Bentley, Case No. H043593 (6th Dist. Nov. 13, 2018) (unpublished), the family law judge imposed various Family Code section 271 sanctions against ex-wife. Some of them were
Gotta Have Causation, Family Law Practitioners! Okay, we have posted before on sanctions awarded against litigants in a family law dissolution or related matter under Family Code section 271, which is aimed at dissuading conduct which is frivolous or not targeted at resolving the matter. The facts in Marriage of Karuppiah and Thurairajah, Case
There Was A Disparity In Assets/Cash Flow So As To Justify The Award. The appellate court in Marriage of Azmoon, Case No. B277654 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Oct. 23, 2018) (unpublished) affirmed a $75,000 pendente lite attorney’s fees award to ex-wife under Family Code sections 2030/2032/4320. It was made payable $5,000 per month and
Trial Judge Denied Fees Request Without Prejudice, So It Could Be Renewed. In Jordan v. Binford, Case No. F075265 (5th Dist. Oct. 5, 2018) (unpublished), ex-husband lost a contempt proceeding in which he alleged that ex-wife willfully disobeyed a custody and visitation order. Ex-husband also sought to recover attorney’s fees from his ex-wife. The
No Abuse Of Discretion Shown. In Marriage of Elgin and Yenyk, Case No. B285857 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 2, 2018) (unpublished), the family law commissioner—except for one missed appearance by ex-husband’s attorney—did not award anywhere close to the needs-based fees or Family Code section 271 sanctions to ex-wife as she requested. The commissioner
Here, Appellate Court Determined Record Showed Financial Gulf Such That Fee Recovery Was Mandatory, Remanding To Determine Amount Of Fees To Be Awarded To Ex-Wife. In Marriage of Morton, Case Nos. F073689/F074243 (5th Dist. Sept. 26, 2018; reposted for corrected version on Oct. 1, 2018) (partially published; fee discussion published), the Fifth District concluded
Neither Side Enjoyed A Substantial Financial Advantage Over The Other, Plus Ex-Husband’s Emails Showing He Intended To Make The Case “A Battle Of Attrition,” Justified Denial Of The Fee Request. Family Code section 2030 is a needs-based fee shifting provision which allows a family law judge to “level the playing field” by ordering one
Family Law Judge Did Not Consider Husband’s Ability to Pay, And Wife Was Not Required To Make A Separate Request For Fees On Appeal When She Had Already Requested Them. Marriage of McCallon, Case No. G054567 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 20, 2018) (unpublished) is an interesting case in which an ex-wife gets a
None Of Ex-Wife’s Papers Before A Critical Hearing Specifically Referenced Section 271, Requiring A Reversal Without Prejudice. This next case, Marriage of Bauer, Case No. H041338 (6th Dist. Aug. 10, 2018) (unpublished), teaches an important due process lesson in family law cases: if you are going after fees as Family Code section 271 sections
