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 Marriage of Vu and Fearn, Case No. G054234 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 8, 2018) (unpublished) was a situation where the family law judge awarded $15,000 in Family Code section 271 sanctions against both former spouses but also denied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 G053243/G053665 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 18, 2018) (unpublished) involved a situation where ex-husband was assessed with Family Code section 271 sanctions in the amount of $20,000.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
Record Did Show Disparity In Income Between Spouses. In Marriage of Cueva, Case No. D071913 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 9, 2018) (unpublished), the family law judge awarded ex-wife Family Code section 2030 needs-based fees of $2,000 after a 9 ½ year marriage involving five children. Father’s challenges to the award were unavailing on
Also, In Contested Probate Proceedings, An Evidentiary Hearing Is Required Unless Parties Stipulate To Using Affidavits Or Declarations. Maldonado v. Giblin, Case No. H041417 (6th Dist. Dec. 27, 2017) (unpublished) is a prime example showing how appellate jurists are attuned to gender equality issues and legislative changes aimed at promoting such equality in the
Homeowners Association—Anaheim Hills Planned Community Assn. v. Chen, Case No. G053128 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 9, 2017) (Unpublished). In this first one, homeowner appealed a trial court’s award of appellate fees to HOA in a CC&R dispute under both a prior settlement agreement and the Davis-Stirling Act. The appellate fee award of $36,830.50
Contract Provision Was Discretionary, And Ex-Husband Lacked Ability To Pay Under Family Code Provisions. Ex-wife obviously was frustrated in Marriage of Rice, Case No. G053287 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 29, 2017) (unpublished) because she did seek attorney’s fees from ex-husband for child/spousal support issues but was denied them after multiple hearings before family
Award Must Be Based On Actual Income And Assets. Although unpublished, Marriage of Aquino, Case No. B279406 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Sept. 29, 2017) (unpublished) dealt with the issue of whether a trial judge could order a needs-based fee award under Family Code sections 2030/2032 based on the perception that one ex-spouse could obtain
Ex-Husband Was Contentious And Ex-Wife Had Already Contributed Significant Moneys To Level The Playing Field. With respect to Family Code section 271 sanctions, equities often determine who wins or loses on these requests. Marriage of Madigan, Case No. G052559 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 20, 2017) (unpublished) illustrates this well, a 3-0 panel decision
Ex-Husband Filed Lots Of Motions And Did Not Provide Record Citations To Generate Traction On Appeal, Plus Ad Hominem Found Abhorrent. Marriage of Bulmer, Case No. B277266 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Sept. 18, 2017) (unpublished) may seem routine (and it somewhat is), but does contain some good guidance for any litigant trying to gain
