Cases: Family Law

Fee Clause Interpretation, Family Law: Husband’s Fees In Defeating Wife’s Orange County Action, Although Stipulated Judgment Entered In Los Angeles Family Law Court, Was Allowable Under Wording Of Stipulated Judgment Fees Clause

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

“Court Intervention” Language Not Limited To Just One Court, 2/1 DCA Concludes.             In Pont v. Pont, Case No. B284064 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 20, 2018) (unpublished), ex-husband was awarded $90,000 in attorney’s fees and costs for defeating ex-wife’s claim that he siphoned off community assets in an Orange County action, after the parties […]

Discovery, Family Law: Family Law Judges, On Discovery Matters Rather Than OSC Matters, Can Issue Sanctions Based On Declaration Testimony

Cases: Discovery, Cases: Family Law

No Oral Testimony Required Under The Circumstances.             We found Marriage of Clarke and Akel, Case No. A151888 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 11, 2018) (unpublished) to be an interesting case given that it involved an intersection between family law and civil discovery procedures.             The essence of the matter was a discovery dispute between

Family Law: Third District Affirms Discretionary Family Law Fees And Spousal Support Awards Because No Reporter’s Transcript Provided

Cases: Family Law

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

Family Law: Family Law Judge’s Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Reversed And Remanded Based On “Double Dips,” Due Process Grounds, And Client Not Being Liable For Them

Cases: Family Law

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 Nov. 13, 2018) (unpublished), the family law judge imposed various Family Code section 271 sanctions against ex-wife.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

Family Law: $10,000 Sanctions Award Reversed Because Not Tethered Into Any Specific Fees Or Costs

Cases: Family Law

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

Family Law: Denials Of Contempt Proceeding For Alleged Visitation Order Disobedience And Needs-Based Fees Request, Adverse To Ex-Husband, Were Proper

Cases: Family Law

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

Family Law: Family Law Commissioner Did Not Err In Denying Most Of Ex-Wife’s 2030/271 Fee Or Sanctions Request Based On DissoMaster Showing Equal Net Spendable Income And Both Sides’ “Grossly Over-Litigated” Stances

Cases: Family Law

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

Family Law: Family Code Section 2030(a) Requires Explicit Needs-Based Findings And A Mandatory Fee Recovery If The Findings Show Disparity In Financial Resources/Ability To Pay

Cases: Family Law

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

Family Law: Trial Judge Properly Denied Ex-Husband’s Request That Ex-Wife Pay $35,000 Of His Fees Under “Needs-Based” Family Code Section 2030

Cases: Family Law

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

Scroll to Top