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 Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished) was a situation where a perfectly-proper “needs based” award of $15,000 was granted to ex-wife because ex-husband was behind on child support and had more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 […]
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
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
$20,000 Fee Award to Girl Friend Affirmed On Appeal. In Fox v. Knopp, Case Nos. B240449 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 8, 2013) (unpublished), attorney boyfriend was hit with a $20,000 domestic violence fee award in favor of ex-girlfriend. The statutory basis was Family Code section 6344(a), which allows a
Appellant Did Not Present Adequate Record for Review. Ex-husband likely was not pleased with getting hit with an $876,000 attorney’s fees award to reimburse his ex-wife for fees she had to incur in defending herself in a lawsuit caused by his alleged fraudulent operation of a construction business. So, he appealed in Marriage
Reversal Required Because Family Judges Must Show They Weighed Financial Factors On The Record. Marriage of Wood, Case No. G047509 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 24, 2013) (unpublished), a 3-0 decision authored by Justice Moore, is a reminder to family law practitioners to obtain judicial justification of discretionary “needs based” fees awards in
Failure to Provide Reporter’s Transcript or Substitute Was Damning. In Marriage of Kahdeman, Case No. B243812 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Aug. 28, 2013) (unpublished), ex-husband appealed a $3,000 award under Family Code section 271, contending that the lower court actually erroneously awarded it other Family Code provisions. The problem here is that appellant
Ex-Husband Had Funds Available To Pay Obligations/Fees, With Financial Disparity Between The Parties. Family Code section 2030, which we have discussed frequently, authorizes a court to make an award of attorney’s fees and costs where there is a “disparity” in “ability to pay” for legal representation. Ex-husband was assessed a $75,000 fee award
Failure to Make Findings Did Not Require Reversal of Fees Award. Husband, after found to have diverted $181,951 secretly from various accounts, was hit with a $50,000 fee award in wife’s favor based either on need/financial basis (Family Code sections 2030/2032) or as sanctions for litigious conduct (Family Code section 271). Husband’s
More Extended Three Years Limitations Period Does Not Apply Unless Asset Was Unadjudicated or Omitted from Marital Division Judgment. Here is an interesting one in the family law area, involving claims that ex-husband contingency attorney concealed his true interest in a contingency split for multi-millions in fees to securities attorneys handling the Enron
