Financial Need Analysis Needed To Be Fine Tuned. In Marriage of Hernandez, Case No. G062386 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 17, 2025) (unpublished), Justice Delaney on behalf of a 3-0 panel reversed and remanded a $7,500 needs-based fee award to ex-wife when her attorney only said he charged her a flat $5,000. The ultimate […]
Indian Tribe’s General Welfare Program Payments To Father, Who Has An Annual Salary Exceeding $100,000 Per Year, Were Not Need Based. In Pateras v. Armenta, Case No. B336065 (2d Dist., Div. 6 February 27, 2025) (published), the 2/6 DCA affirmed the lower court’s conclusion that the monthly payments father receives from Indian Tribe’s general
Unpublished Case Has A Nice Discussion On Why A Section 271 Sanctions Denial Is Not A Collateral Order. Unpublished opinions frequently have good discussions on legal issues, which is the case on whether a denial of a Family Code sections 271 request is a collateral order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
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 In Marriage of Goldman, Case No. D082021 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 10, 2025) (partially published; fee discussion unpublished), ex-husband and ex-wife entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA) which wife claimed was breached and then asked for needs-based fees and costs to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
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.
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
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
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 In Marriage of O’Hill, Case No. G062146 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 1, 2024) (unpublished), a family law judge expressly stated in his order that pendente lite fee orders were subject to reasonableness findings and further revisions at a later date.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
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
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
