Evidence That Party With Greater Resources Incurred Greater Fees Should Be Taken Into Account, But Did Not Matter Here. Marriage of Maxwell, Case No. F065915 (5th Dist. Jan. 30, 2014) (unpublished) involves a divorce in which wife was heiress with large income from a trust (disposable income of $43,000 per month), and husband
This One Was a True Marital Imbroglio—Doesn’t Look Like Anyone “Won.” Marriage of Aitchison, Case No. A134450 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 24, 2014) (unpublished), is a monument to the fees and costs that can be spent in a volatile dissolution matter. Here is the beginning of this opinion: “‘[T]he parties appear in
Substance Over Form Prevailed in this One. Marriage of Sharples, Case No. E056941 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 22, 2014) (published) is a case where a lower court denied a wife’s needs-based request for provisional attorney’s fees and costs (with husband having a definably bigger cash flow/asset advantage) because she did not file
Civil Rights FEHA: Chiang v. County of Los Angeles, Case No. B238948 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 15, 2014) (Unpublished). County won summary judgment but appealed the lower court’s refusal to award it requested attorney’s fees of $324,098.80 as the prevailing party. The appellate court affirmed the conclusion that fees are not guided
Goes to Show You … Family Law Judges Have to Create More of a Record Than Civil Judges Do in Certain Fee Proceedings. The present state of the law is that trial judges in most civil fee proceedings do not, we stress do not, have to provide a statement of decision in support
Husband’s Use of Entities to Hide Assets, As Found By Lower Court, Also Supported Order. In Marriage of Saadian, Case No. B227708 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 2, 2014) (unpublished), ex-wife obtained an order by which ex-husband—who had monthly cash flow over $62,400 (yep, you heard right)—had to pay her $1 million for
$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 In Marriage of Delgado, Case No. D060905 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 24, 2013) (unpublished), wife’s requests for needs-based fees and Family Code section 271 sanctions were denied, with ex-husband eventually obtaining a needs-based fee order which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
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 Dec. 17, 2013) (unpublished) affirmed a $1,500 attorney’s fees award against wife under Family Code section 271, a sanctions-type provision allowing fee shifting where a party tries to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.
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.
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
