Cases: Family Law

Family Law: Section 271 Sanctions Denial Dismissed As An Interlocutory Order But Section 2030 Needs-Based Denial Reversed Because The Request Was Adequately Supported

Cases: Family Law

Unpublished Case Has A Nice Discussion On Why A Section 271 Sanctions Denial Is Not A Collateral Order.                Unpublished opinions frequently have good discussions on legal issues, which is the case on whether a denial of a Family Code sections 271 request is a collateral order which is immediately appealable.                In Marriage of […]

Family Law: Lower Court’s Denial Off Needs-Based Fees Based On Ruling That Wife Was Barred From Enforcing Marital Settlement Agreement By Laches Was Erroneous

Cases: Family Law

Laches Ruling Needed To Be Revisited.                In Marriage of Goldman, Case No. D082021 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 10, 2025) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished), ex-husband and ex-wife entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA) which wife claimed was breached and then asked for needs-based fees and costs to enforce it.  The lower court

Family Law, Sanctions: $222,952 Fee Award To Ex-Husband Under Family Code Section 271 For Prevailing In A Vigorously Contested DVRO Proceeding Was Proper

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

Lower Court Did Consider Ex-Wife’s Ability To Pay, Ordering It Be Paid $5,000/Month.                Family law litigants and practitioners should pay attention to how Family Code section 271 sanctions for failing to settle family law matters can be painful and a game changer as far as a litigant’s financial well-being.  Marriage of Detrick, Case No.

Family Law, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: $43,000 Fee Award To Prevailing Petitioner In An Extensive DVRO Proceeding Is Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Current Version Of Family Code Section 6344 Is Retroactive To Cases Pending On Its Effective Date, With Fee Award Not Being Seen As Excessive In Nature.                Prevailing petitioner (ex-wife) was awarded $43,000 in attorney’s fees imposed upon her ex-husband under Family Code section 6344 in a DVRO proceeding.  That award was affirmed on appeal

Deadlines, Family Law, Judgment Enforcement: Attorney’s Fees Judgment Under Family Code Section 2030 Not Barred By Normal 10-Year Enforcement Period

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Family Law, Cases: Judgment Enforcement

Family Code Section 291(b) So Specifies.                   In Marriage of Shayan, Case No. B323455 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 25, 2024) (published), the appellate court affirmed a lower court’s conclusion that an attorney’s fees judgment under Family Code section 2030 was not governed by the normal 10-year enforcement period for most monetary

Appealability, Family Law: Where Family Law Judge Expressly Reserved Findings On Fee Reasonableness For A Later Date, Pendente Lite Fee Order Appeal Dismissed

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Family Law

Appellant Can Be Free To Appeal When A Final Order Is Issued.                In Marriage of O’Hill, Case No. G062146 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 1, 2024) (unpublished), a family law judge expressly stated in his order that pendente lite fee orders were subject to reasonableness findings and further revisions at a later date.  The

Arbitration, Family Law: MFAA Fee Process Is Not Required For Fees To Be Awarded To Attorney Representing Minor In A Custody Dispute

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Family Law

Family Code Section 3153 And CRC 5.241 Supported This Conclusion.                In Marriage of Thompson, Case No. B332150 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 24, 2024) (unpublished), ex-spouses were embroiled in a “high conflict” custody dispute over their minor child, with the family court appointing a family law attorney to represent the minor child and with

Family Law: Denial Of Section 2030 Fees To Wife With A Disparity In Income/Assets Needed To Be Remanded To Award Reasonable Fees To Her

Cases: Family Law

Lack Of Express Findings On The Factors Required A Remand.                In In re Marriage of Patton, Case No. B329509 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 29, 2024) (unpublished), the appellate court reversed a family law judge’s failure to award Family Code section 2030 fees to ex-wife, where the record showed she made $60,000

Family Law, Retainer Agreements, Sanctions: CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Award Reversed Because Litigant Not Given Safe Harbor Notice/OSC Notice That The Sanctions Response Was Sanctionable

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Sanctions

Also, We Learn New Things All The Time—Contingency Agreements In Family Law Proceedings Are Against Public Policy.                Wright v. Wright, Case No. B330901 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 23, 2024) (unpublished) is interesting on two points:  (1) it reversed a CCP § 128.7 sanctions order against a litigant based on litigant’s response to a

Allocation, Deadlines, Family Law: $72,776.25 Appellate Fee Award To Ex-Husband For Ex-Wife’s Breach Of Fiduciary Duties Affirmed On Appeal, Although Husband Lost Section 271 Sanction Request

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Family Law

Lower Court Impliedly Extended The Fee Filing Deadline, With The Failure To File An Income/Expense Statement Found Nonprejudicial In Nature.                Bryan v. Bryan, Case No. E080311 (4th Dist., Div. 2 July 1, 2024) (unpublished) is a case where ex-husband was awarded $72,776.25 in appellate fees (out of a requested $90,000) for winning an appeal

Scroll to Top