Cases: Family Law

Appealability, Family Law: Where Family Law Judge Expressly Reserved Findings On Fee Reasonableness For A Later Date, Pendente Lite Fee Order Appeal Dismissed

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Family Law

Appellant Can Be Free To Appeal When A Final Order Is Issued.                In Marriage of O’Hill, Case No. G062146 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 1, 2024) (unpublished), a family law judge expressly stated in his order that pendente lite fee orders were subject to reasonableness findings and further revisions at a later date.  The […]

Arbitration, Family Law: MFAA Fee Process Is Not Required For Fees To Be Awarded To Attorney Representing Minor In A Custody Dispute

Cases: Arbitration, Cases: Family Law

Family Code Section 3153 And CRC 5.241 Supported This Conclusion.                In Marriage of Thompson, Case No. B332150 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 24, 2024) (unpublished), ex-spouses were embroiled in a “high conflict” custody dispute over their minor child, with the family court appointing a family law attorney to represent the minor child and with

Family Law: Denial Of Section 2030 Fees To Wife With A Disparity In Income/Assets Needed To Be Remanded To Award Reasonable Fees To Her

Cases: Family Law

Lack Of Express Findings On The Factors Required A Remand.                In In re Marriage of Patton, Case No. B329509 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Aug. 29, 2024) (unpublished), the appellate court reversed a family law judge’s failure to award Family Code section 2030 fees to ex-wife, where the record showed she made $60,000

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                Wright v. Wright, Case No. B330901 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Aug. 23, 2024) (unpublished) is interesting on two points:  (1) it reversed a CCP § 128.7 sanctions order against a litigant based on litigant’s response to a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.

Scroll to Top