Cases: Family Law

  Some Evidence To Demonstrate Claim’s Potential Validity Required.      Two prior decisions, In re Marriage of Siller, 187 Cal.App.3d 36, 53 (1986) and In re Marriage of Bendetti, 214 Cal.App.4th 863, 871 (2013), allow pendente lite attorney’s fees to be imposed against third parties if statutory requirements for fee entitlement is shown, with the […]

  Family Law No Different, Appellate Court Rules in Freeman.      We ask family law practitioners to comment on this post, if they are so willing.      The issue is what time deadline governs a subsequent motion to obtain post-appeal fees for sustaining a family law fee “sanctions” award under Family Code section 271 for

  Family Code Sections 721 and 1100 Were Proper Predicates For The Award.      Husband was unhappy when hit with $42,105.06 in attorney’s fees in favor of ex-wife based on his withdrawal of thousands of dollars of community assets, withdrawal of the entire lump sum retirement benefits, and refusal to provide material facts and information

  Wife Also Failed to Separate Out Argument or Provide Citation to Authority.      The Third District’s decision in Marriage of Gartman, Case No, C071200 (3d Dist. Feb. 2, 2015) (unpublished) shows the dangers of a judgment roll appeal as well as failing to follow appellate rules on presentation/support of written arguments.      In this

    Timeliness And CRC 5.427 Noncompliance Arguments Rejected.        In Schwarzinger v. Reuter, Case No. A140153 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 29, 2015) (unpublished), an appellate court reluctantly reversed a custody order on due process grounds. However, it rejected challenges to a fees/cost order to respondent grounded in arguments that the fee petition was

  Appellate Court Reverses Partial Basis For 271 Award, Requiring A “Relook” Below.      Husband was not happy in being denied part of a substantial tax refund and other rulings in his dissolution proceeding, prompting an appeal in Marriage of Becker, Case No. G048497 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 28, 2015) (unpublished). He also challenged

  However, The Underlying Fact Were Fun.      Marriage of Raghuraman, Case No. G049489 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 8, 2015) (unpublished), in a clinical way, reiterates that an appeal will not get very far unless an adequate record is presented on appeal. Without that, the appellate court cannot even send a brief back to

  Husband’s Appeal Rejected, Because Both Parties Engaged In Acrimonious Behavior According To Appellate Court.      Nasty facts and nasty conduct, no matter what parties may believe, usually do not lead to a reversal and do not lead to a reversal where both parties are perceived to be at somewhat equal “fault.”      In Marriage

  Record Showed Husband Did Have Ability To Pay Adverse Sanctions Award.      In Marriage of Lane, Case No. B29872 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 17, 2014) (unpublished), husband brought a fifth appeal, this time of a $349,381 sanctions award against him and in favor of wife under Family Code section 271 (the fee-shifting provision