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             In Marriage of Elgin and Yenyk, Case No. B285857 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Oct. 2, 2018) (unpublished), the family law commissioner—except for one missed appearance by ex-husband’s attorney—did not award anywhere close to the needs-based fees or Family Code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

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             Marriage of McCallon, Case No. G054567 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 20, 2018) (unpublished) is an interesting case in which an ex-wife gets a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 Aug. 10, 2018) (unpublished), teaches an important due process lesson in family law cases: if you are going after fees as Family Code section 271 sections

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             In Marriage of Vinhas and Krognes, Case No. A144387 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 9, 2018) (unpublished), a family law judge largely decided marital standard of living issues in favor of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,