Abuse Of Discretion Standard Not Overcome By Appealing Ex-Wife. Marriage of Gregora and Feldman, Case No. B269587 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 8, 2017) (unpublished) was a high profile divorce case involving Los Angeles attorneys, where ex-wife lost a key breach of fiduciary claim, prompting the trial court to impose a sanction […]
Bad Litigation Tactics Alone Will Not Support 2030/2032 Award. Although the $5,000 fee award to husband may seem paltry based on the needs-based anchors of Family Code section 2030/2032, it was reversed in Marriage of Overstreet, Case No. B271522 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 28, 2017) (unpublished). The reason is that the family
Deferential Standard Of Review Not Hurdled In This One. In Zauner v. Defterios, Case No. B271922 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Mar. 21, 2017) (unpublished), appellant sought needs-based fees in a child custody modification proceeding. She requested $77,067.50 in fees and $17,459.77 in costs, but was only awarded $10,000 in fees and $5,000 in costs.
Needs Based Award Was Less Than 30% Of Wife’s Fee Request Under Section 2030. In Marriage of Schleich, Case Nos. H039870/H041234 (6th Dist. Feb. 8, 2017) (published), ex-husband suffered two adverse awards which were favorable to his ex-wife: (1) a needs-based fee award under Family Code section 2030 to the tune of $412,485
Just Goes To Show You That Dissolutions Proceedings Have A Lot Of Legal And Equitable Issues, No Matter When You Get A Divorce At Any Stage Of Life. Greene County, Georgia. Old couple who receive old-age pension assistance. Fall, 1941. Jack Delano, photographer. Library of Congress. Murdock v. Murdock, Case No. B259694
Fact That Needy Party Is Retired Can Be Considered In Needs-Based Analysis. In Marriage of McLain, Case No. E062884 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 6, 2017) (published), $5,500 in needs-based Family Code section 2030/2032 attorney’s fees were awarded in favor of a wife based on the fact she was 65 of age and
This Component Was Not Tethered To Fees And Costs, So Not Recoverable. We predict that Marriage of Sagonowky and Kekoa, Case Nos. 142866/A143234 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 21, 2016) (partially published; sanctions award discussion published) is going to generate quite a stir in the family law sanctions arena and might be a
Inadequate Appellate Record Required Affirmance – “A Little Learning Is A Dangerous Thing”.1 Marriage of Hettinga & Loumena, Case No. H041589 (6th Dist. Nov. 22, 2016) (unpublished) shows the dangers of undertaking an appeal without knowing the nuances of appellate practice. In this one, wife—who previously had been sanctioned $100,000 and declared a
$72,660 Fee Award Against Husband Reversed On Appeal. In Saldana v. Noh, Case No. A143491 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 14, 2016) (unpublished), wife moved to recover fees against husband under Family Code section 6344, which allows a prevailing party in a Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) proceeding to recoup fees. However, the
271 Sanctions Award Also Reversed, But Child Support Enforcement/DVRO Fees Against Husband Were Sustained On Appeal. Just to show you how appellate courts “balance the equities,” husband won some and lost some in a challenge to a denial of a Family Code section 2030 needs-based fees award, a grant of section 271 sanctions
