Cases: Family Law

  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 Jan. 25, 2016) (unpublished), husband contended that a $45,000 fee award was an improper modification of an earlier judgment which had only awarded $15,000 in needs-based fees to wife.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      In Marriage of Scott, Case No. B263480 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 15, 2016) (unpublished), Byron Scott’s ex-wife appealed a needs-based fee award of $75,000 rather than the $100,000 she requested.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,

  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     In Marriage of Filadelfina, Case No. G050184 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 30, 2015) (unpublished), husband appealed a $43,000 fee award to wife under Family Code section 2030’s “needs based” rubric.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

  Parties’ Bargain Prevailed, With Fees Only Relating To Litigation To Two Specific Motions—Sweeping Away Prior Sanctions Awards.      Family law practitioners should read In re Marriage of Reed, Case Nos. B253728/B255233 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Oct. 21, 2015) (unpublished). Briefly summarized, it held that a specific settlement agreement clause on fee recovery blunted any