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 Mar. 28, 2013) (Unpublished) In this one, the attorney’s fees award was remanded because the family law judge based in on Family Code sections 2030/2032, which did apply, and also on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 Mar. 22, 2013) (unpublished) that the family law judge granted Family Code section 271 sanctions based not on the conduct mentioned in initial papers (failure to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Justice Fybel, on behalf of a 3-0 panel in Marriage of Golka, Case No. G045882 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Feb. 21, 2013) (unpublished), sustained a $45,000 sanctions award under Family Code section 271 against ex-husband.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
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 Feb. 1, 2013) (unpublished).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.
