Cases: Family Law

Family Law/Prevailing Party: Adoption Facilitator Defendants Obtaining Order Compelling Arbitration And Eventual Voluntary Dismissal Of Suit Were Prevailing Parties Entitled To Fee Recovery

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Basis for Fee Recovery Was Family Code Section 8638(c).      In Bates v. Kors, Case No. D063123 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 27, 2013) (unpublished), registered adoption facilitator defendants obtained a statutory fee award of $14,760 against plaintiffs, parents attempting to adopt a surrogate baby, under Family Code section 8638(c). Section 8638(c) allows a […]

Appeal Sanctions/Family Law: $8,000 In Sanctions To Ex-Wife For Child Support Arrears Reimbursement, Denial Of Discovery Sanctions To Ex-Husband, And $22,000 Appeals Sanctions Against Husband/His Counsel For Frivolous Appeal All Sustained

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

  Be careful what you appeal.      In Marriage of O’Neill and Mitruka, Case Nos. Do62049/D062539 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed these lower court determinations in a family law dispute:      (a) Sustained a $8,000 fee award in favor of ex-wife for obtaining child support arrears reimbursement given

Family Law: $15,000 Needs-Based Fee Award Against Ex-Husband Scaled Back Because Ex-Wife Only Requested $7,500

Cases: Family Law

  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 Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished) was a situation where a perfectly-proper “needs based” award of $15,000 was granted to ex-wife because ex-husband was behind on child support and had more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

Family Law: Appellate Court Sustains Family Law Judge’s Refusal To Award Ex-Wife Fees For Appellate Work Under Needs-Based Statute In Battle Between Two Practicing Attorney Ex-Spouses

Cases: Family Law

  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

Family Law/Sanctions: $43,000 Sanctions Reversed Against Attorney For Violating California State Bar Rules Of Professional Conduct Through Hiring An Ineligible Co-counsel In Family Law Proceeding

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

  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

Family Law: Lower Court Did Not Have To Consider Financial Needs Factor In Awarding Discretionary Fees Under Family Code Section 6344(a) In Domestic Violence Proceeding

Cases: Family Law

  $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

Family Law: Lower Court’s Failure To Consider Financial Factors On Merits Issues Bleed Through To The Fee Award

Cases: Family Law

  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

Family Law/Record: $3,000 Family Code Section 271 Fee Award Against Husband Sustained On Appeal

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Record

  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

Scroll to Top