Fourth District, Division One So Rules In Unpublished Decision. In Marriage of Breen, Case No. D062502 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 2, 2013) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed a family law judge’s setting of spousal support for ex-wife and awarding needs-based fees to her also.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
Husband’s Appeal Was Frivolous, With Lower Court To Determine Fees On Remand. Marriage of S., Case No. G047517 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished) is a case where an ex-husband unsuccessfully appealed a family judge order that each side bears his/her own fees/costs. The record certainly supported the denial on a
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 In Bates v. Kors, Case No. D063123 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 27, 2013) (unpublished), registered adoption facilitator defendants obtained a statutory fee award of $14,760 against plaintiffs, parents attempting to adopt a surrogate baby, under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
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 Do62049/D062539 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished), the appellate court affirmed these lower court determinations in a family law dispute: (a) Sustained a $8,000 fee award in favor of ex-wife for obtaining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
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 Nov. 26, 2013) (unpublished) was a situation where a perfectly-proper “needs based” award of $15,000 was granted to ex-wife because ex-husband was behind on child support and had more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 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 8, 2013) (unpublished), attorney boyfriend was hit with a $20,000 domestic violence fee award in favor of ex-girlfriend.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
