However, Appealing Ex-Wife Not Awarded Costs On Appeal For Failure To Direct Trial Court’s Attention To This Omission. Since 2010, needs-based requests for attorney’s fees by family law litigants require family law judges to make findings on whether there is a disparity in access to funds by one party and whether the responding party […]
Attorney Father, Whose Wife Had Passed, Claimed He Entered Into A Strictly No Strings Attached Arrangement With College Student Mother In Exchange For Money. She Claims Otherwise. A child with special needs, who suffers from cerebral palsy and chronic lung problems, is at the center of this He Said/She Said in Monterey County Dept.
Wife’s Requests For Award Of Attorney Fees Under Family Code Sections 271 and 2030 Were Denied As Husband’s Conduct Did Not Warrant Sanctions Under Section 271, And No Disparity In Access To Funds Existed Between The Parties Under Section 2030. In Marriage of Whooley, Case No. B277145 (2d Dist., Div. 3 February 26, 2019)
Husband Seeking To End Spousal Support Was Ordered To Continue Paying For Additional Five Years, Plus Needs-Based $2,500 Toward Wife’s Attorney’s Fee Due To Change In Circumstances After Entry Of Stipulated Judgment – Not Due To Court’s Determination That Their Marriage of Less Than 10 Years Was Long Term. In Marriage of Weiskittel, Case
Lack Of Fee Hearing Reporters’ Transcripts Sealed The Correctness Of The Orders. The Third District, in Marriage of Samorano, Case Nos. C084143/C086540 (3d Dist. February 5, 2019) (unpublished), affirmed $7,500 in fees and sanctions awards in favor of ex-husband and against ex-wife under Family Code sections 2032 (needs-based provision) and 271 (sanctions provision). The
Section 7605 Deals With Proceedings Involving Child Custody/Visitation. In Darab N. v. Olivera, Case No. B282972 (2d Dist., Div. 1 February 4, 2019) (published), child’s mother appealed denial of her request for $100,000 in attorney’s fees under Family Code section 7605 relating to her efforts to defend against motions to quash brought by father
2/6 DCA Remembers That Attorneys Are Both Zealous Advocates And Officers Of The Court. Presiding Justice Gilbert, in Marriage of Anka & Yeager, Case No. B281760 (2d Dist., Div. 6 February 4, 2019) (published), reminds licensed attorneys that we are both zealous advocates and officers of the court. The appellate court affirmed a trial
Also, Hearing The 271 Sanctions Request At The Same Time Saved Court Resources. The Second District, Division 2, in Perow v. Uzelac, Case No. B283457 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 31, 2019) (published), decided that a wife’s request for Family Code section 271 sanctions in her responsive declarations in a dissolution modification proceeding was
Appellate Court Recognized Spin-Off Litigation Under Stipulated Settlement With A Fees Clause Could Give Rise To Fee Recovery Even Though Dissolution Case Venued Elsewhere. In our December 22, 2018 post, we discussed Pont v. Pont, Case No. B284064, which was a 2/1 DCA decision which was unpublished at the time. The opinion upheld an
No Abuse of Discretion Shown, With Appellate Court Reminding Practitioners That Fiduciary Breach Fee Sanctions Are Mandatory In Nature. Ex-husband in Marriage of Tsatryan, Case Nos. B270784/B276299 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 14, 2019) (unpublished) was not happy with being hit with $65,000 in attorney’s fees sanctions under Family Code sections 1101(g) [for breach
