Cases: Family Law

Family Law: Husband Properly Granted Needs-Based Fees Because Wife’s New Husband’s Income Was Extraordinary In Nature And Wife’s Father-in-Law Provided Free Legal Services

Cases: Family Law

  $7,500 Needs-Based Fee Order In Husband’s Favor Affirmed on Appeal.      In Marriage of Delgado, Case No. D060905 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 24, 2013) (unpublished), wife’s requests for needs-based fees and Family Code section 271 sanctions were denied, with ex-husband eventually obtaining a needs-based fee order which wife had to pay to the […]

Family Law: Wife Properly Hit With Family Code Section 271 Sanctions For Trying To Undo Court-Ordered Stipulation For Child/Spousal Support

Cases: Family Law

  Bad Faith Not a Necessary 271 Predicate.      The Fifth District in Marriage of Franco, Case No. F065488 (5th Dist. Dec. 17, 2013) (unpublished) affirmed a $1,500 attorney’s fees award against wife under Family Code section 271, a sanctions-type provision allowing fee shifting where a party tries to discourage settlement in family law matters.

Family Law: Denial Of Ex-Wife’s Request For Needs-Based Fees Reversed

Cases: Family Law

  Records Did Not Reflect Lower Court Considered Needs-Based Factors.      In Marriage of Kokoszka, Case No. E056727 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 10, 2013) (unpublished), the issue was whether the record established that the lower court properly considered the needs-based factor in denying a fee award to ex-wife in a family law case.     

Family Law: Family Law Judge Does Not Need To List All Needs Based Factors In Setting Spousal Support Or Awarding Needs Based Fees

Cases: Family Law

  Fourth District, Division One So Rules In Unpublished Decision.      In Marriage of Breen, Case No. D062502 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 2, 2013) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed a family law judge’s setting of spousal support for ex-wife and awarding needs-based fees to her also. On appeal, husband argued that the lower court

Appeal Sanctions/Family Law: Ex-Husband’s Appeal Of “Each Side Bears Own Fees” Order Was Unsuccessful

Cases: Appeal Sanctions, Cases: Family Law

  Husband’s Appeal Was Frivolous, With Lower Court To Determine Fees On Remand.      Marriage of S., Case No. G047517 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished) is a case where an ex-husband unsuccessfully appealed a family judge order that each side bears his/her own fees/costs. The record certainly supported the denial on a

Family Law/Prevailing Party: Adoption Facilitator Defendants Obtaining Order Compelling Arbitration And Eventual Voluntary Dismissal Of Suit Were Prevailing Parties Entitled To Fee Recovery

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Basis for Fee Recovery Was Family Code Section 8638(c).      In Bates v. Kors, Case No. D063123 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 27, 2013) (unpublished), registered adoption facilitator defendants obtained a statutory fee award of $14,760 against plaintiffs, parents attempting to adopt a surrogate baby, under Family Code section 8638(c). Section 8638(c) allows a

Appeal Sanctions/Family Law: $8,000 In Sanctions To Ex-Wife For Child Support Arrears Reimbursement, Denial Of Discovery Sanctions To Ex-Husband, And $22,000 Appeals Sanctions Against Husband/His Counsel For Frivolous Appeal All Sustained

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

  Be careful what you appeal.      In Marriage of O’Neill and Mitruka, Case Nos. Do62049/D062539 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed these lower court determinations in a family law dispute:      (a) Sustained a $8,000 fee award in favor of ex-wife for obtaining child support arrears reimbursement given

Family Law: $15,000 Needs-Based Fee Award Against Ex-Husband Scaled Back Because Ex-Wife Only Requested $7,500

Cases: Family Law

  Due Process Compelled the “Scale Back.”      Marriage of Vidales, Case No. F064783 (5th Dist. Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished) was a situation where a perfectly-proper “needs based” award of $15,000 was granted to ex-wife because ex-husband was behind on child support and had more income than ex-wife. However, the appellate court scaled back the

Family Law: Appellate Court Sustains Family Law Judge’s Refusal To Award Ex-Wife Fees For Appellate Work Under Needs-Based Statute In Battle Between Two Practicing Attorney Ex-Spouses

Cases: Family Law

  Opinion Has An Excellent Discussion of Needs-Based Analysis for Appellate Work, Which Has A Few Wrinkles From the Analysis for Trial Level Work.      Wrinkles. Shar Pei.  Wikipedia.      Presiding Justice O’Leary, on behalf of a 3-0 panel sitting in our local Santa Ana appellate court, has authored a highly informative opinion on the

Family Law/Sanctions: $43,000 Sanctions Reversed Against Attorney For Violating California State Bar Rules Of Professional Conduct Through Hiring An Ineligible Co-counsel In Family Law Proceeding

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

  Basis for Sanction–CRC 2.30(b)–Is Not Well-Founded.      A family law attorney, in Marriage of Bianco, Case No. D062061 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 22, 2013) (published), was sanctioned $43,000, after a mistrial in a family law matter, because her co-counsel was ineligible to practice law, which might well have constituted a violation of the

Scroll to Top