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 Marriage of McCallon, Case No. G054567 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 20, 2018) (unpublished) is an interesting case in which an ex-wife gets a […]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 Aug. 10, 2018) (unpublished), teaches an important due process lesson in family law cases: if you are going after fees as Family Code section 271 sections
Large-Scale Dissolution Battle Was Involved, With Appellate Court Giving Great Explanation Of Abuse Of Discretion Standard Of Review—Likely a “Smell Test” At Best. In Marriage of Vinhas and Krognes, Case No. A144387 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 9, 2018) (unpublished), a family law judge largely decided marital standard of living issues in favor of
Appellate Court Found These Combined Errors To Require A “Relook” At the RFO. Family law is certainly a specialty, where a lot gets done through a Request for Order (RFO) for support, provisional attorney’s fees, visitation, and other matters in a dissolution action. A lot of activity is governed by Judicial Council forms, with
Evidence Code Section 730 Makes Reasonableness A Requirement. In Marriage of Aresh, Case No. G054062 (4th Dist., Div. 3 July 25, 2018) (unpublished), an ex-husband was saddled with a $179,561 award to a court-appointed forensic accountant in a dissolution matter. He appealed and was awarded by doing so. The problem was that Evidence Code
Remand Necessary In Nevada Litigation Because California Family Law Judge Improperly Took Judicial Notice Of Factual Finding By Nevada Court In Denying A Request For A Reimbursement Of Additional Fees. Admittedly, the Fletcher (Ted) Jones, Jr. dissolution case was going to be messy—after all, the couple lived a lavish lifestyle based on lucrative luxury
Sixth District Follows First District’s Lead As Far As Section 271 Sanctions Limitations. In Marriage of Henley & Jackson, Case No. H043753 (6th Dist. June 29, 2018) (unpublished), a family law judge imposed Family Code section 271 sanctions of $25,000 against husband for his efforts to sell a community asset without notice to wife,
Attorneys Did Seek Sanctions On Behalf Of Wife And Failure To Include Income/Expense Declaration On Appeal Failed To Support Husband’s Financial Burden Argument. In Marriage of Sokol & Avidor, Case No. B280783 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 20, 2018) (unpublished), husband was ordered to pay a total of $114,522.50 in Family Code section 270
Due Process Violation Was Reason For Reversal. In Marriage of Mehta & Grover, Case No. A146919 (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 19, 2018) (unpublished), a $5,500 discovery sanction against an ex-attorney for wife was reversed on due process grounds. What happened was that before the discovery sanctions motion was decided, attorney was relieved as
Although Notices Of Appeal Are Construed Liberally, The Order Under Appeal Still Must Be Specified With Some Precision. Marriage of Schoenfeld, Case No. B281835 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 18, 2018) (unpublished) is a reminder to appellants that some precision must be made in both the notice of appeal and the appellate civil information
