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Justice Fybel, on behalf of a 3-0 panel in Marriage of Golka, Case No. G045882 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 21, 2013) (unpublished), sustained a $45,000 sanctions award under Family Code section 271 against ex-husband.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
Here is a quick two-fer from the Third District: Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank, Case No. C067812 (3d Dist. Feb. 4, 2013) (published): Judgment was entered against buyer in a defective motor home dispute with a lender to whom an installment sales contract was assigned by dealer. The trial court also awarded
The appellate record, in this case transcripts of oral hearings, was critical in the disposition of the appeal in Marriage of Perry, Case No. F062331 (5th Dist. Feb. 1, 2013) (unpublished). Although wife cross-appealed from a denial of some attorney’s fees requests, the record showed that the first judge denied needs-based fees
In re Marriage of Turkanis and Price, Case No. B234011 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 30, 2013) (published) faced two interesting questions: (1) can a non-encumbering spouse bring a motion to expunge an attorney’s family law attorney’s real property lien (FLARPL) granted by an encumbering spouse?; and (2) can a Borson
Justice Ikola, on behalf of a 3-0 panel, faced an interesting dissolution proceeding in Marriage of Turner, Case No. G045973 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 28, 2013) (unpublished). After 16 years of marriage, wife applied for child/spousal support of at least $40,000 per month (yes, what you see is correct) in a
She Was Not Impecunious, And Former Husband Looked To Be Candid–Fee Awards Sustained. In re Marriage of Hardiman, Case No. A133266 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 25, 2013) (unpublished) is an interesting dissolution case pitting well healed ex-spouses, mainly due to Genetech/Roche stock options that actually came to roost and helped both sides.
Although “bad facts make bad law,” sad facts also make the law, good, bad, or indifferent. The next two cases we discuss demonstrate that truth. Marriage of Feakins, Case No. A132338 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 22, 2013) (unpublished). In this one, ex-husband out of a 17 year marriage was incarcerated for
Unjustified Contempt Proceedings Justified Family Code Section 271 Sanctions. In our December 19, 2012 post, we discussed Parker v. Harbert, where 271 sanctions were awarded against ex-husband for unjustified contempt proceedings. On January 15, 2013, the First District, Division 5 ordered the prior unpublished decision to be published.
Mother Was Not a Party, So Her Finances Were Irrelevant. In Marriage of Bailey & Nation, Case No. B236851 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 14, 2013) (unpublished), the appellate court reversed a needs-based fee award to husband because no evidence was adduced showing that ex-wife could afford to compensate him for his family
