Reversal As A Matter Of Law Was The Result. Ex-husband’s attorney in Forrest v. Forrest, Case No. D086281 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 8, 2026) (unpublished) had a $5,000 monetary sanction imposed for certain conduct in a marital dissolution case, exclusively assessed under Family Code section 271. That sanction order was reversed as a matter
Ex-Wife Paid Nearly Double The Amount Of Fees To Her Attorney And She Would Get Trust Loans To Pay Ex-Husband, Justifying The Family Court Award. In the area of Family Code section 2030, the end goal is to level the “playing field” for family court litigants. The next case, Marriage of Khym & Miner, Case
Marriage of Aviles Opinion Supported The Result. Marriage of Chevallier & Rodriguez, Case No. H052644 et al. (6th Dist. May 15, 2026) (unpublished) determined a litigant, who together with her boyfriend did not file Declarations of Domestic Partnership with California’s Secretary of State, was properly denied an attorney’s fees award by the lower court because
The Trial Court Was Required To Issue An Award Based On Whether Mandatory Findings Demonstrated Disparity In Access To Funds And Ability To Pay. In Marriage of Saedi v. Kadivar, Case No. B347642 (2d Dist., Div. 2 April 14, 2026) (unpublished), Visitation-seeking Grandmother appealed the trial court’s denial of her request for Family Code section
Civil Code Section 1717 Lodestar Factors Alone Do Not Restrict The Family Court In Deciding Prevailing Party Contractual Fees. Marriage of Bowman, Case No. B331924 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 3, 2026) (published) held that a family law judge can consider financial needs and ability to pay (Family Code section 2030 and 2032 factors) in
Case Held That Not Stipulating To Legal Separation On Religious Grounds And Not Particularizing Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Request Led To A Reversal. On February 20, 2026, we posted on Marriage of Hoch, Case No. G063467 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished), which held that Family Code section 271 sanctions were not
His Failure To Stipulate Did Not Show Bad Faith Under The Circumstances And The Awarded Sanctions Were Not Tethered To Any Specific Conduct. Family Code section 271 does allow for monetary “sanctions” against a family law litigant who tries to not foster resolution and makes the proceedings more expensive. However, they are not a general
Lack Of Family Code Section 2030 Findings Constituted An Abuse Of Discretion. In Marriage of Tran and Ha, Case No. G064047 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 17, 2026) (unpublished), ex-wife’s requests for two sets of fees (which were denied) did not result in a relook on appeal, but her request for non-appellate, needs-based fees had
Ex-Wife Did Substantially Comply Before The 2030 Hearing, With Husband Stipulating To A Disparity. In Marriage of Stewart, Case No. B339569 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 30, 2026) (unpublished), ex-wife sought two tranches of Family Code section 2030 “needs-based” fees because she was hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to her divorce attorney for
One $42,169.75 Component Of The Fee Award Was Remanded For Restudy, With the Remainder Of The $204,682.97 Award Affirmed, Although It Could Be Offset By Amounts Ex-Husband Owes To Ex-Wife. Family law proceedings can be messy. Domestic violence (DVRA) proceedings often are brought, with the nonprevailing party facing exposure for fees and costs under certain
