Cases: Family Law

  Innovative Futuristic Award Sustained Upon Review.      Marriage of Chan, Case No. B242788 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 4, 2014) (unpublished) is interesting for the “needs-based” futuristic attorney’s fees component awarded to ex-wife under Family Code section 2030/2032.      In this one, the family law judge indicated that, for on-going fees incurred by ex-wife,

  Husband Did Not Show He Could Not Pay Sanctions Award.      After 25 years of marriage, husband got hit with a Family Code section 271 sanctions order of $14,872 in fees/expended incurred by ex-wife mainly based on encumbering property without consent after filing of the restraining order going into effect after the filing of

  Prior Award of $160,000 in Fees and Transfer of Valuable Property to Wife Sufficed.      When you are in family law court, make sure you consider all the equities before seeking needs-based fees or Family Code section 271 sanctions.      In Marriage of Davis, Case No. B243382 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 17, 2014)

Husband Provided Equivalent Judicial Council Information, With Wife Having the Better Standard of Living Based on Income From a “New Mate.”      Ex-wife in Buchanan v. Alhino, Case No. C072653 (3d Dist. June 17, 2014) (unpublished) appealed a family law order directing that she contribute $4,000 toward ex-husband’s attorney’s fees under the needs-based statutes (Family

  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 Using outdated statements can result in a reversal under the circumstances, as it did in Marriage of Ching, Case No. G049628 (4th Dist., Div. 3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