Reason Was Lower Judge Previously Had Denied Needs Based Fees For Other Post-Appeal Work Such That No Different Analysis Would Apply To Appellate Fees Issue. Marriage of Elizabeth and Gregory G., Case No. B259276 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 12, 2016) (unpublished) was a situation where a lower court erroneously determined that a […]
However, Court Of Appeal Suggests That Family Code Section 2107(d) Is Unconstitutional. Marriage of Zellet, Case No. B268640 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 18, 2016) (unpublished) is a very interesting unpublished decision. It considered whether an award of attorney’s fees to wife based on a husband’s breach of fiduciary obligations under Family Code
Reason Is That 271 Sanctions Do Not Lie Against An Attorney, Just The Litigant. In Marriage of Noble, Case No. H041148 (6th Dist. Aug. 3, 2016) (unpublished), wife’s attorney challenged a $6,000 discovery sanctions award against her and a separate $10,000 sanctions award against her under Family Code section 271. The appellate court
$28,500 Fee Request By Mother Found Unreasonable, With Lower Court’s Order Of $3,500 Under Family Code Sections 2030/2032 Being Sustained On Appeal. Mother, in Marriage of Morcos-Jewgieniew and Jewgieniew, Case No. G050727 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 1, 2016) (unpublished), requested $28,500 in fees based on “need” under Family Code sections 2030 and 2032,
Updated Information Might Show Disparity Existed For “Needs Based” Fee Award. In Marriage of Kelley & Nelson, Case No. B266745 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 22, 2016) (unpublished), wife’s request for “needs based” fees was denied. However, that decision was reversed on appeal because the lower court did not use husband’s updated financial
Once Jurisdictional Hurdle Was Surmounted, Record Below Justified Lower Court Award. Georgi-Juarez v. Juarez, Case No. G051351 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 17, 2016) (unpublished) involved husband’s appeal of a $20,000 “needs-based” award to ex-wife under Family Code section 2030/2032 after husband had appealed the dissolution judgment. The award was affirmed on appeal.
However, Remand Required To See If Husband’s Fee Request Was Overinflated. In Marriage of Rubanowitz, Case No. B257782 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 7, 2016) (unpublished), husband and wife having seven children were enmeshed in a divorce proceeding which had some unusual facts: (1) husband, who was an attorney, lost a major client
Also, Block Billed Fee Billings Needed To Be Looked At Again. A family law judge’s denial of a fee request to ex-husband was remanded in Marriage of Nunez and Minor, Case No. G051412 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 27, 2016) (unpublished). The reason was that the lower court failed to consider the needs-based
Although Not Directly Raised, Appellate Court Entertained Out Of Equity Based On Husband’s Financial Change. In In re Shepherd, Case No. H039876 (6th Dist. Apr. 21, 2016) (unpublished), ex-husband and ex-wife in a highly contentious dissolution proceeding had spent about $700,000 between the both of them along the way. This appeal involved ex-husband
Husband Already Got Nice First Pendente Lite Award And Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Concluding Parent Lawsuit Was Not “Related” To Family Law Proceeding. Going to the well too often can have consequences, as the fourth appeal in Sweeney v. Evilsizor, Case No. A144781 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 19,
