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
No Injury Required to Opposing Party Under Section 2107(c). A lower court in Marriage of Young, Case No. B234768 (2d Dist., Div. 6 July 23, 2013) (unpublished) decided that a husband, after four years of “active” litigation, should have to pay sanctions to wife of $120,000 under Family Code section 2107(c) [mandating candid
Due Process Was the Reason for Reversal. Marriage of Kleytman and Pechonkina, Case No. A134740 (1st Dist., Div. 2 July 18, 2013) (unpublished) is a good illustration of how due process can prevail in a family law sanctions context. Here, husband was sanctioned under Family Code section 271 for $2,500 in fees
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Rylaarsdam, on behalf of a 3-0 panel, in Marriage of Restaino, Case No. G045429 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 16, 2013) (unpublished), affirmed a $75,000 sanctions (Family Code section 271) order against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 In Marriage of Nigro, Case No. G046170 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 3, 2013) (unpublished), ex-wife likely was bewildered when she was hit with $8,524.88 in Family Code section 271 sanctions and then denied any Family Code section 2030 needs-based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
