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 In our December 22, 2018 post, we discussed Pont v. Pont, Case No. B284064, which was a 2/1 DCA decision which was unpublished at the time.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 B270784/B276299 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 14, 2019) (unpublished) was not happy with being hit with $65,000 in attorney’s fees sanctions under Family Code sections 1101(g) [for breach
Husband And Wife Had Litigated Themselves Into Financial Ruin, Trial Court Observed. In Thacher v. Thacher, Case No. B279985 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 3, 2019) (unpublished), the trial judge observed that husband and wife had litigated themselves into financial ruin in the dissolution case. After all, they had engaged in a 38-day trial
“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 In Pont v. Pont, Case No. B284064 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 20, 2018) (unpublished), ex-husband was awarded $90,000 in attorney’s fees and costs for defeating ex-wife’s claim that he siphoned off community assets in an Orange County action,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
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 We found Marriage of Clarke and Akel, Case No. A151888 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 11, 2018) (unpublished) to be an interesting case given that it involved an intersection between family law and civil discovery procedures.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
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 Nov. 13, 2018) (unpublished), the family law judge imposed various Family Code section 271 sanctions against ex-wife.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
