City & County of San Francisco v. Price, Case No. A139024 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 29, 2016) (Unpublished). Wife challenged a $1,200 sanctions award presumably made under Family Code section 271 after husband made the request orally at a hearing. She argued this was a due process violation, but the appellate court […]
… Should Usually Be Granted, But New Concurring Opinion Does Not Blame Trial Judge For What Transpired. On February 10, 2016, we posted on the unpublished decision of Mooney v. Superior Court, Case No. H041500, which considered whether attorney’s fees awarded against ex-wife for a settled statement option on appeal dispute was proper.
Ex-Husband’s Checking Boxes On Form Order Did Not Solve The Problem. Family Code section 2030(a)(2) for a few years has required that family law judges explain why or why not a needs-based award was granted/denied based on statutory factors. Our local Santa Ana Court of Appeal, in Marriage of Shimkus, Case Nos.
Appellate Court Found Settled Statements Should Be Encouraged, And Fee Award May Have Surrogate For Needs-Based Fees Under The Wrong Rubric. This one may interest appellate practitioners more than family law practitioners. California Rules of Court, rule 8.137, actually encourages parties to agree to a settled statement where oral proceedings are not transcribed
. . . Not Just A Clerical Change From Earlier Judgment. Clerical error? In Marriage of Goldberg, Case No. C077384 (3d Dist. Jan. 25, 2016) (unpublished), husband contended that a $45,000 fee award was an improper modification of an earlier judgment which had only awarded $15,000 in needs-based fees to wife. The Third
Husband Properly Granted Motion To Expunge FLARPL. Husband, who was granted the marital home as his sole and separate property in a dissolution case, expunged ex-wife’s attorney’s family law attorney’s real property lien (FLARPL) based on attorney’s failure to comply with statutory requirements for FLARPL. That result was sustained in In re Marriage
No Abuse of Discretion Given Family Law Judge Found Excessive Billing By Ex-Wife’s Counsel. In Marriage of Scott, Case No. B263480 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 15, 2016) (unpublished), Byron Scott’s ex-wife appealed a needs-based fee award of $75,000 rather than the $100,000 she requested. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion,
Allocation—Artefex LP v. Bushman, Case No. B260737 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 17, 2015) (Unpublished). In this one, plaintiffs won $15,000 on a contract breach claim after voluntarily dismissing tort claims, with the trial judge then awarding $191,256 in fees and $11,778.37 in costs based on a fees clause. The 2/6 DCA reversed
Fee Decision Can Be Based On Declarations Alone. In Marriage of Filadelfina, Case No. G050184 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 30, 2015) (unpublished), husband appealed a $43,000 fee award to wife under Family Code section 2030’s “needs based” rubric. On appeal, husband claimed a due process violation in that the family law judge
Case Has Nice Discussion On Nondischargeable/Dischargeable Fee Awards in Bankruptcy. We have to give credit to Judge Yegan and his colleagues on the Second District, Division 6. They helped clarify an issue we have seen before as far as what type of family attorney’s fees awards in family law proceedings are nondischargeable or
