$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 In Saldana v. Noh, Case No. A143491 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 14, 2016) (unpublished), wife moved to recover fees against husband under Family Code section 6344, which allows a prevailing party in a Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA)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
Above: Surgeon operating on wounded prisoner. c1903. Library of Congress. $400 Hourly Rate Reasonable For Divorce Attorney In L.A. Case. Ex-husband, an orthopedic surgeon who lost his job but became reemployed, was ordered to pay $15,000 in needs-based attorneys fees under Family Code sections 2030/2032 to his ex-wife, who was unemployed and a stay
Wife’s Appeal Of Fee Denial Was Untimely. Wife was flummoxed by a lower court’s refusal to award her attorney’s fees, appealing from the denial in Bennett v. Foss, Case Nos. A145656/147009 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 28, 2016) (unpublished). Unfortunately for her, the appellate court determined that she untimely appealed such that it
Ex-Husband’s Failure To Allocate And Use Of Block Billing Resulted In Real Problems At Trial And Ultimate Denial Of Any Fees Incurred By Husband. Adding prize winner. Washington D.C. “In a speed and accuracy contest for adding machine operators last night, William A. Offutt of the Washington Loan and Trust Company, was declared winner
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 Marriage of Elizabeth and Gregory G., Case No. B259276 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 12, 2016) (unpublished) was a situation where a lower court erroneously determined that a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 Marriage of Zellet, Case No. B268640 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 18, 2016) (unpublished) is a very interesting unpublished decision.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 Aug. 3, 2016) (unpublished), wife’s attorney challenged a $6,000 discovery sanctions award against her and a separate $10,000 sanctions award against her under Family Code section 271.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
