Marriage of Dawes & West-Dawes, Case No. H037291 (6th Dist. Dec. 21, 2012) (unpublished) involved a dissolution proceeding for a 17 year marriage producing 3 kids. The wife had the much more meager income, with the court saying the husband produced 87% of the parties’ combined incomes. However, wife apparently received possibly up […]
Frivolity Finding Not Required. In Parker v. Harbert, Case No. A134060 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 19, 2012) (unpublished), husband, a prisoner at some times during the germane time, appealed a $92,000 atttorney’s fees/costs award (out of a requested $121,113.90) awarded to ex-wife under Family Code section 271. Husband initiated a lengthy contempt
Marriage of Marash & Whitman, Case No. H036639 (6th Dist. Dec. 10, 2012) (unpublished) could be a precursor of a lot more reversals of needs-based attorney’s fees awards in dissolution proceedings. In this one, the appellate court reversed a lower court’s award of attorney’s fees to an ex-wife based on Family Code
Settlement Agreement Fees Clause Preempted Needs-Based Award, Most Likely. Marriage of Gurnee, Case No. D059672 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 6, 2012) (unpublished) is an interesting unpublished case exploring the tension between statutory needs-based fee shifting statutes in the dissolution area and contractual settlement fees clauses that conflict with the statutory regime.
$70,000 Needs-Based Award Affirmed So Wife Can Prepare for Trial. Husband, in a prior appeal, did not convince the appellate court to overturn a $200,000 needs-based fees award in favor of wife. He didn’t in a second appeal of a $70,000 fees award made to wife so she could prepare for a 7-day
Income Earning Disparity Was Tangible and Failure to Provide More Information on 271 Request Was Fatal. Husband challenged two things in Marriage of Smith, Case No. B232161 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 10, 2012) (unpublished): (1) a needs-based Family Code 2030/2032 fee award of $9,000 to wife; and (2) refusal to award him
Marriage of De Monbrun, Case No. B236130 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 3, 2012) (unpublished) involved a husband’s challenge to a $10,000 sanction awarded to wife under Family Code section 271. Husband did well to appeal, gaining a reversal on appeal. Section 271 is not meant to incorporate the “English rule” into
General Objection to Tentative Decision Awarding Incurred Fees Over Requested Amount Overturned. Marriage of Sidiakina and Navid, Case No. A129313 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 24, 2012) (unpublished) is another due process reversal in a family case where a lower court awarded $74,200.78 in fees to husband even though he only requested an
Mossman v. Naranjo, Case No. D059054 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 18, 2012) (Unpublished)–CAR Form Real Estate Contract Covers Fees Won For Real Property Nondisclosure Claims. Plaintiffs/buyers won fraud-based claims for property nondisclosures from defendants/sellers, but defendants won the contract based claim. The lower court denied fees to both parties, finding no prevailing
Plenty of Blame To Go Around On All Sides, Appellate Court Agreed in Sustaining Trial Court Perspective. Husband in Marriage of Sun, Case No. A128964 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 11, 2012) (unpublished) appealed, among other things, a trial judge’s determination that neither side was worthy of an attorney’s fees award, even though
