Waiver Was the Result. In Marriage of Williamson, Case No. B238067 (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 12, 2014) (published), wife—who was awarded $10,000 in fees and costs as against husband—claimed she was denied due process by not being able to present relevant evidence on the issue before judgment was entered. However, the […]
Remand to Consider in Light of Wife’s Changed Income Picture. Updated, fresh income and expense statements are key in support and Family Code section 2030/2032 needs-based fee proceedings. Using outdated statements can result in a reversal under the circumstances, as it did in Marriage of Ching, Case No. G049628 (4th Dist., Div. 3
Mother’s Trial Tactics And Income Weighted in Properly Denying Fees. Wood v. Fard, Case No. G048418 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 30, 2014), authored by Justice Aronson on behalf of a 3-0 panel, contains a nice discussion of the standards to be used in awarding attorney’s fees in child custody disputes under the
Deferential Abuse of Discretion Standard Sealed the Deal. In Marriage of Browne, Case No. A139607 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 27, 2014) (unpublished), ex-husband got hit with a $3,000 Family Code section 271 sanctions for filing “too many motions” against ex-wife. That determination was affirmed on appeal. Although the written order did not
Judgment Roll Limitations Drove the Result in this One. Marriage of Notaro, Case No. C074200 (3d Dist. May 20, 2014) (unpublished) is a situation where an ex-wife appealed only obtaining an award of $3,000 out of a requested $15,335 in needs-based fees. The fee order was affirmed, for one major reason. Ex-wife elected
Parties’ Spending on Fees During the Course Supported the Award. Marriage of Grimm, Case No. B247643 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 12, 2014) (unpublished) is a case where an ex-husband, a struggling hospital engineer, was ordered to pay temporary needs-based attorney’s fees to his ex-wife, who had an English masters and no permanent
Marriage of Brown, Case No. D063584 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 9, 2014) (Unpublished). In this one, a lower court ordered ex-husband (a U.S. military service member) to pay $5,500 in Family Code section 4320 needs-based fees, but ordered them paid as spousal support. Husband argued that the decision to make the order
Wife Only Cited to a Family Code Provision Relating to Enforcement of an Existing Child Support Order, Not a Modification Situation. In Bennett v. Foss, Case Nos. A137452/A138342 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 29, 2014) (unpublished), ex-wife did obtain reversal of a child support modification order on appeal. However, in the lower court,
Statutory Language Allows Both To Be Imposed. The family law judge in Marriage of O’Connell, Case No. G047362 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 22, 2014) (unpublished) imposed $62,903 in sanctions as well as awarded one-half of undisclosed financial accounts in favor of wife and against husband under Family Code section 1101(g). Husband argued
However, Open Question Remains—Need to File Motion for Further Response/Evidentiary Preclusion As Predicate—Not Decided. Marriage of Crawford, Case No. A138156 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 28, 2014) (unpublished) affirmed a trial court’s denial of awarding sanctions against an ex-husband under Family Code section 2107, which allows a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees
