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 In Marriage of Kelley & Nelson, Case No. B266745 (2d Dist., Div. 4 July 22, 2016) (unpublished), wife’s request for “needs based” fees was denied.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 Georgi-Juarez v. Juarez, Case No. G051351 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 17, 2016) (unpublished) involved husband’s appeal of a $20,000 “needs-based” award to ex-wife under Family Code section 2030/2032 after husband had appealed the dissolution judgment.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 In Marriage of Rubanowitz, Case No. B257782 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 7, 2016) (unpublished), husband and wife having seven children were enmeshed in a divorce proceeding which had some unusual facts: (1) husband, who was an attorney, lost a major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request to ex-husband was remanded in Marriage of Nunez and Minor, Case No. G051412 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 27, 2016) (unpublished).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 Apr. 21, 2016) (unpublished), ex-husband and ex-wife in a highly contentious dissolution proceeding had spent about $700,000 between the both of them along the way.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,
City & County of San Francisco v. Price, Case No. A139024 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 29, 2016) (Unpublished).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 On February 10, 2016, we posted on the unpublished decision of Mooney v. Superior Court, Case No. H041500, which considered whether attorney’s fees awarded against ex-wife for a settled statement option on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
