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 In Schwarzinger v. Reuter, Case No. A140153 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 29, 2015) (unpublished), an appellate court reluctantly reversed a custody order on due process grounds.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dissolution proceeding, prompting an appeal in Marriage of Becker, Case No. G048497 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 28, 2015) (unpublished).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 Marriage of Raghuraman, Case No. G049489 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 8, 2015) (unpublished), in a clinical way, reiterates that an appeal will not get very far unless an adequate record is presented on appeal.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 In Marriage of Lane, Case No. B29872 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 17, 2014) (unpublished), husband brought a fifth appeal, this time of a $349,381 sanctions award against him and in favor of wife under Family Code section 271 (the fee-shifting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
Fee Award Directed Payment Of Money, So It Was Final For Appealability Purposes Even Though Order Said Future Adjustments Could Be Made. In Marriage of Bustillo, Case No. G048816 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 15, 2014) (unpublished), husband appealed a $5,000 needs-based fee award to wife, entered in May 2012, directing payment of
Record Did Not Support the Argument that the Lower Court Abused Its Discretion. Marriage of Sa and Martino, Case No. H039875 (6th Dist. Nov. 19, 2014) (unpublished) demonstrates how it will be hard for a family law litigant to overcome the deferential abuse of discretion standard when trying to challenge an additional needs-based
Raceway Ford Cases, Case Nos. E054517/E056595 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 16, 2014) (published) In this one, the defense—except for one fraud claim as to one plaintiff—waxed plaintiffs bringing various consumer and unfair competition claims. Defendants’ reward was a $1,503,084.50 fee recovery under various statutes. However, that went POOF! on appeal when several
Ex-Wife Did Not Show Sanctions Were An Abuse of Discretion, With No “Double Dipping” Based on Prior Discovery Sanctions. Family Code section 271 sanctions, oftentimes attorney’s fees for resolution-thwarting, obstructionist conduct by a family law litigant, are generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Marriage of Bell, Case No. D064293 (4th Dist.,
Ex-Wife Appeared To Get Large Sums of Cash From Casino Business and Parents. Carol Highsmith, photographer. Library of Congress. In Marriage of Aguina & Kang, Case No. E057770 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 14, 2014) (unpublished), ex-wife was ordered to pay temporary needs-based fees to ex-husband of $10,000 under Family Code sections
