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 May 20, 2014) (unpublished) is a situation where an ex-wife appealed only obtaining an award of $3,000 out of a requested $15,335 in needs-based fees.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 Marriage of Grimm, Case No. B247643 (2d Dist., Div. 7 May 12, 2014) (unpublished) is a case where an ex-husband, a struggling hospital engineer, was ordered to pay temporary needs-based attorney’s fees to his ex-wife, who had an English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Marriage of Brown, Case No. D063584 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 9, 2014) (Unpublished).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 A137452/A138342 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 29, 2014) (unpublished), ex-wife did obtain reversal of a child support modification order on appeal.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 The family law judge in Marriage of O’Connell, Case No. G047362 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 22, 2014) (unpublished) imposed $62,903 in sanctions as well as awarded one-half of undisclosed financial accounts in favor of wife and against husband under Family Code section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 Marriage of Crawford, Case No. A138156 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 28, 2014) (unpublished) affirmed a trial court’s denial of awarding sanctions against an ex-husband under Family Code section 2107, which allows a court to award reasonable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
However, Error Was Not Prejudicial In Nature. In Marriage of Bareket & Marcus, Case No. A136067 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 12, 2014) (unpublished), ex-wife was miffed when a lower court denied her request for Family Code section 2030 needs-based fees on the eve of a trial. On appeal, the reviewing court agreed
Divorce Case Here Was a “Belizian” To-Do. Marriage of Wade, Case No. B230601 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Feb. 18, 2014) (unpublished) was a Belizian-flavored dissolution proceeding: ex-wife and her son, from Belize, were granted asylum from the U.S.; she met and married her ex-husband, also from Belize, in the U.S.; and husband helped
By Time of Ruling, Both Parties Had Somewhat Equal Assets. Ex-wife obviously was upset in Laughman v. Laughman, Case No. B245837 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Feb. 10, 2014) (unpublished) because the lower court only ordered ex-husband to pay needs-based fees of $25,000 even though she requested more than $200,000 in fees. The
Case Illustrates the High Price of Divorce. Not so much for its discussion of some needs-based fee orders, Marriage of Schulman, Case No. D063341 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 21, 2014) (unpublished) was revealing in the high price of divorce: ex-husband spent $76,000 in fees (resorting to defending himself with some family law
