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 Nov. 22, 2016) (unpublished) shows the dangers of undertaking an appeal without knowing the nuances of appellate practice.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 In Saldana v. Noh, Case No. A143491 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 14, 2016) (unpublished), wife moved to recover fees against husband under Family Code section 6344, which allows a prevailing party in a Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA)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
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 A145656/147009 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 28, 2016) (unpublished).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
