However, Denial of Needs-Based Fee Motion Remanded For Failure to Engage in Needs Based Analysis, Although Outcome May Not Differ. Justice Rylaarsdam, on behalf of a 3-0 panel, in Marriage of Restaino, Case No. G045429 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 16, 2013) (unpublished), affirmed a $75,000 sanctions (Family Code section 271) order against […]
Abuse of Discretion Standard Drove Result Here. In Marriage of Nigro, Case No. G046170 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 3, 2013) (unpublished), ex-wife likely was bewildered when she was hit with $8,524.88 in Family Code section 271 sanctions and then denied any Family Code section 2030 needs-based fees for hiring an assistant attorney
This next decision reminds all appealing parties to make sure you hit all arguments, especially independent bases for a fee award. Failure to address an alternative predicate for a fee award can be fatal, as it was here. Ex-wife in Marriage of Rica, Case No. A135687 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 30,
Basis Was Failure to Disclose Separate Property, But 1101(h) Only Applies to Community Property Nondisclosures. Husband was behind the “eight ball” in this one. He was hit with fees/sanctions under Family Code section 1101(h) for $245,850, under Family Code section 2107 for $150,000, and under Family Code section 217 for $250,000. On
Appellate Court Addresses Interactions Between Family Code Sections 3652 and 2030. Hutchison v. Ajiduah, Case No. B236024 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Apr. 2, 2013) (unpublished) reminds us of an interesting interaction between Family Code sections 3652 and 2030. Under the former, the court can award prevailing party fees/costs with respect to an order
Marriage of Roval, Case No. H037577 (6th Dist. Mar. 28, 2013) (Unpublished) In this one, the attorney’s fees award was remanded because the family law judge based in on Family Code sections 2030/2032, which did apply, and also on Family Code section 3652, which did not apply. This required another look-see under sections
Here is an interesting one showing how an inadequate appellate record can be damning. It was apparent in Marriage of Castaneda, Case No. C067676 (3d Dist. Mar. 22, 2013) (unpublished) that the family law judge granted Family Code section 271 sanctions based not on the conduct mentioned in initial papers (failure to
In Marriage of Bendetti, Case No. B228045 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 19, 2013) (partially published), first wife alleged that husband fraudulently transferred property to second wife, who was joined in the dissolution proceeding. First wife then moved for pendente lite fees, and she was awarded $131,750 in needs-based attorney’s fees under Family
Her Oral $15,000 Add-on Request for a Consultant Not Adequately Supported. In Marriage of Preim, Case No. A130791 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 13, 2013) (partially published; fee discussion not published), wife was found statutorily ineligible to receive spousal support based on her history of domestic violence toward her husband, a determination affirmed
$30,000 of the Award Was For Fees. Acting Presiding Justice Fybel, on behalf of a 3-0 panel in Marriage of Golka, Case No. G045882 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 21, 2013) (unpublished), sustained a $45,000 sanctions award under Family Code section 271 against ex-husband. ($15,000 went to an accountant, and $30,000 went to
