Husband Did Not Have Liquid Assets To Do This, So Installment Payment Was Needed. In Marriage of Straw, Case No. C072933 (3d Dist. July 6, 2015) (unpublished), husband was ordered to pay Family Code section 2030 “needs based” fees of $40,000 to wife so she could either pay off her attorney or have
However, Sanctions For Frivolous Appeal Denied, With Appellate Court Telling Both Sides To “Behave.” In Marriage of Weiss, Case No. D065042 (4th Dist., Div. 1 June 22, 2015) (unpublished), husband was sanctioned for $22,500 in fees under Family Code section 271’s sanction statute, about one-third of wife’s request. Husband appealed it, but the
Matter Remanded To Consider Fees Request Under Two Statutes. In Christner v. Sweeney, Case No. H040736 (6th Dist. June 19, 2015) (unpublished), an ex-boyfriend defendant defeated a TRO brought by plaintiff ex-girlfriend from a personal/business relationship under the Domestic Violence Protection Act. The lower court then denied defendant’s request for fees of $49,812.10 under
$10,000 Award Not Supported By Substantial Evidence Or Shown To Be Reasonable. Family Code section 7605(a) provides that a court must ensure equal access to legal representation in a child custody/visitation dispute, including an award of fees and costs, based on “the income and needs assessments.” In Torres v. Cox, Case No.
She Had Previously Been Awarded $3.127 Million In Fees. This next case, authored by Justice Moore on behalf of a 3-0 panel, involves Nevada divorce proceedings relating to prenuptial, marital, and post-marital settlement agreements between Fletcher Jones, Jr. and his ex-wife Kimberly. After Fletcher had previously paid about $3.127 million of her divorce
Court Rejects Simple “Clerical” Versus “Judicial” Correction Distinction. Ellis v. Ellis, Case No, B248860 (2d Dist., Div. 4 April 2, 2015) (published) is a decision of interest to appellate practitioners and family law practitioners as far as when to appeal from certain judgments (including ones involving attorney’s fees), especially when they are modified
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
Clause Much Narrower Than Preemptive Fees Clause in Guilardi Opinion. Ex-wife in Marriage of Dryer, Case No. H038921 (6th Dist. Feb. 20, 2015) (unpublished) garnered Family Code section 2030/271 fees totaling $60,000 against ex-husband, who principally argued that a marital settlement agreement (MSA) fees clause was broad enough to “trump” fee recovery under
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
