Says At Least $100,000 in Attorney’s Fees Expended During the Case. The Orange County Register has an appropriately titled article “I Want A Divorce Eventually” (and later “Endless Divorce”) about the 12 1/2 year Warren and Carol Rosendale divorce case, where the former couple are still fighting over spousal support and whether Carol obtains […]
Wife Lost Bonus and Fees Dispute. In Schnopp v. Schnopp, Case No. B236111 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Sept. 5, 2012) (unpublished), wife lost the merits of her claim that stock options based on performance constituted a bonus for which additional child support compensation was due, The trial court found that marital settlement agreement
Law Firm’s Appeal Lacked Merit on Procedural and Merit Grounds–”Get Outta Here”. You know, this case does not really fit well within our categories, and co-contributor Marc is a stickler for trying to put our posts into categories. However, a very entertaining decision has come down from our local Santa Ana appellate court,
No Abuse Shown, Given that Husband Caused Wife to Run Up $76,252.05 During Pertinent Time Frame. Marriage of Stafford, Case Nos. 133579/A133984 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 20, 2012) (unpublished) is one of those cases illustrating that trial and appellate courts demonstrate pragmatism when setting or reviewing Family Code section 271 sanctions awards.
Due Process Violations Are Important in this One. Marriage of Tossey, Case No. G044484 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 16, 2012) (unpublished), authored by Justice Aronson on behalf of a 3-0 panel, reminds us once again that due process issues are important to appellate courts when deciding appeals. Wife challenged a trial
Lower Court Did Weigh Financial Abilities of Both Parties. Husband lost his appeal of a lower court order requiring husband and wife to split the costs of minor child’s counsel in a custody dispute. On appeal in Marriage of Carter, Case No. C068599 (3d Dist. Aug. 16, 2012) (unpublished), husband challenged the award
Scholarly Review of Amendments to Family Code Section 2030 Undertaken in Opinion. Marriage of Foglar, Case No. H037573 (6th Dist. Aug. 16, 2012) (unpublished) caught our eye because of its discussion of the legislative amendments to Family Code section 2030, the “needs based” fee authorization in family law matters whose purpose is to
Majority Sustains Entire Award; Concurring Judge Would Have Remanded on Installment Payment Request by Husband. We have many times explored the nuances of Family Code sections 2030-2032, which allows a party to a dissolution proceeding to seek a need-based attorney’s fees award at any time by fling a motion or order to show
Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Award Also Upheld on Appeal. Marriage of Pitto and Behrendt, Case No. A126802/A127429 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2012) (unpublished), involving a relatively short marriage, does reinforce certain lessons for us, basically two in number. Number 1 is this. A substantial $354,542 fee award was sustained
Apex LLC v. Sharing World, Inc., Case No. G045321 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 31, 2012; Posted June 5, 2012) (published). Justice Fybel, on behalf of a 3-0 panel of our local appellate court, reversed bench trial results in an opinion involving many UCC issues, such as gap fillers for contract formation, confirmation
