Both Sides Had Paid Or Owed A Cumulative $1.841 Million In Dissolution Proceedings. We are not sure that the appellate court was happy with any of the parties in this case that we now report on. After all, in the dissolution saga, ex-husband had paid attorneys $900,000, still owing $70,000, while ex-wife had paid […]
Ex-Husband Obtained A Lopsided Win, With Both Parties Expending $1 Million In Litigation Costs Since Separation. Attorney’s fees awards in family law setting are extremely discretionary and the end rest of litigation costs for both parties along the way, even with some reimbursement awards allowed, can certainly make destitute or bankrupt any party. This is
But No Appellate Fees Awarded To Ex-Husband. In Marriage of Reed, Case No. G050666 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 15, 2018) (unpublished), ex-wife was assessed with $20,000 in sanctions under Family Code section 271 and another $5,000 in sanctions for breach of fiduciary duty for failure to disclose the existence of a community property
Also, Disentitlement Doctrine Might Prevent Further Appeals By Ex-Husband. Ex-husband in Marriage of Volovik & Parchin, Case No. B280980 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 18, 2018) (unpublished) was disgruntled when the lower court imposed a Family Code section 271 sanction award of $30,000 against him, although the result could have been worse given the
Failure to Include Reporter’s Transcript Of Fee Proceedings Was Fatal On Appeal. In a growing trend among California intermediate appellate courts, the 4/3 DCA in Marriage of Watts, Case No. G053304 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 11, 2018) (unpublished), affirmed the denial of Family Code section 217 sanctions to the tune of $37,000 as
Appeal By Ex-Wife Found Frivolous, Which Carried $10,000 More In Sanctions. Marriage of Wintermute and Soltan, Case No. G052397 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 9, 2018) (unpublished) was a situation where ex-wife appealed a Family Code section 271 sanction of $25,000 after an earlier appellate opinion disagreed with a critical assertion of ex-wife that
Spousal Support Is Income For Purposes Of Interpreting Section 271. In Marriage of Pearson, Case No. D070360 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 12, 2018 partially published; fee discussion published; other parts of opinion modified Mar. 27, 2018), the 4/1 DCA decided that a trial judge did not err in ordering that Family Code section
Family Law Judge Basically Found Both Parties Could Bear Expenses And Ex-Wife Overlitigated The Case. Marriage of Vu and Fearn, Case No. G054234 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 8, 2018) (unpublished) was a situation where the family law judge awarded $15,000 in Family Code section 271 sanctions against both former spouses but also denied
Husband Had Sought $37,000 Sanctions Award. Ex-husband, who had spent $165,000 in fees on his own dissolution attorney and had paid ex-wife $119,650 through previous pendent lite attorney’s fees, was frustrated when the trial judge ordered him to pay yet an additional $60,000 in 2030/2032 fees to wife and only sanctioned her $3,000 under
No Abuse Of Discretion Demonstrated. In re Marriage of Rafipoor, Case Nos. G053243/G053665 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 18, 2018) (unpublished) involved a situation where ex-husband was assessed with Family Code section 271 sanctions in the amount of $20,000. Among other things, the record suggested that husband made a motion with his finger across
