Cases: Family Law

Family Law, Retainer Agreements, Sanctions: CCP § 128.7 Sanctions Award Reversed Because Litigant Not Given Safe Harbor Notice/OSC Notice That The Sanctions Response Was Sanctionable

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Retainer Agreements, Cases: Sanctions

Also, We Learn New Things All The Time—Contingency Agreements In Family Law Proceedings Are Against Public Policy.                Wright v. Wright, Case No. B330901 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 23, 2024) (unpublished) is interesting on two points:  (1) it reversed a CCP § 128.7 sanctions order against a litigant based on litigant’s response to a […]

Allocation, Deadlines, Family Law: $72,776.25 Appellate Fee Award To Ex-Husband For Ex-Wife’s Breach Of Fiduciary Duties Affirmed On Appeal, Although Husband Lost Section 271 Sanction Request

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Family Law

Lower Court Impliedly Extended The Fee Filing Deadline, With The Failure To File An Income/Expense Statement Found Nonprejudicial In Nature.                Bryan v. Bryan, Case No. E080311 (4th Dist., Div. 2 July 1, 2024) (unpublished) is a case where ex-husband was awarded $72,776.25 in appellate fees (out of a requested $90,000) for winning an appeal

Family Law, Reasonableness Of Fees: Marital Settlement Agreement Did Not Preclude Needs-Based Fees To Ex-Husband, But Remand Required Because Appellate Court Could Not Determine The Basis Of The $10,000 Needs-Based Award To Wife

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

She Asked For $72,355, With Appellate Court Unsure As To How This Amount Was Reached.             Both ex-husband and ex-wife were unhappy with needs-based awards to each in Konkov v. Doubson, Case No. H050705 (6th Dist. May 14, 2024) (unpublished).  Both appealed, with mixed results but not certain that anything would change on remand.            

Family Law: Ex-Husband’s Oral Request For Needs-Based Fees In DVRO Proceeding Was Properly Denied

Cases: Family Law

No Evidence On Financial Need Was Presented, Although Appellate Court Noted A Split On Intermediate Appeal Thinking On Whether Needs-Based Fees Are Warranted In This Area.                In Marriage of Etheridge, Case No. A167520 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 30, 2024) (unpublished), ex-husband made an oral request for Family Code section 2030 needs-based fees in

Family Law: Modification Of Section 2030 Needs-Based Award Is Left To The Broad Discretion Of The Family Law Judge

Cases: Family Law

Ex-Husband Could Not Show An Abuse Of Discretion, Especially With No Reporter’s Transcript.                In Marriage of Longinotti and Karpala, Case No. H051393 (6th Dist. Apr. 25, 2024) (unpublished), ex-husband requested the family law judge to modify a Family Code section 2030 need-based fees/costs award to ex-wife after he paid a substantial part of it

Family Law: 271 Sanctions Award Remanded Because It Was Unclear If Family Law Judge Considered Litigant’s Ability To Pay

Cases: Family Law

Family Code Section 271(a) Mandates Consideration Of Ability To Pay.                Although we have posted on this before, Family Code section 271(a) mandates that a family law judge takes into consideration a litigant’s ability to pay when assessing section 271 sanctions.  In Jayasuriya v. Jayasuriya, Case Nos. A166864 et al. (1st Dist., div. 3 Mar.

Family Law: Ex-Husband’s Pre-Marriage Contractual Debt, Including Attorney’s Fees Liquidated Later Through A Post-Separation Award, Were Properly Characterized As A Responsibility Of Ex-Wife

Cases: Family Law

It Did Not Matter If The Debt Was Incurred Before Marriage Or If The Fee Award Was Fixed After Separation.                Although unpublished, Marriage of Ferris, Case No. A165952 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 15, 2024) (unpublished) may be an eye opener for spouses who may not have been informed about contractual debts incurred by

Family Law, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Court Of Appeal Decides Current Version Of Domestic Violence Prevention Act, Applies Retroactively To Cases After 2023, Justifying A Fee Award

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

Family Code Section 6344 Applies Retroactively.             In Dragones III v. Calkins, Case No. B329659 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 17, 2024) (published), the 2/7 DCA confronted whether Family Code section 6344, effective 2023, made it easier for a prevailing petitioner to obtain fees and harder for a prevailing respondent to obtain fees in actions

Family Law, Fee Clause Interpretation, Indemnity: Some Parts Affirmed, Some Parts Reversed And Remanded In Appeal Involving Community Or Separate Property Liability For Indemnification Obligations

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity

Also, Fee/Costs Award Under Indemnity Agreement Only Recoverable Against Ex-Husband, A Signatory To The Agreement, But No Fee Exposure Under The Third-Party Indemnity Provision; Needs-Based Fees Paid To Both Spouses Are Separate Debts Of Husband For His Need-Based Fees And Community Debts For Fees To Both Spouses.             Acting Presiding Justice Moore, in In re

Scroll to Top