Cases: Family Law

       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 Marriage of Feakins, Case No. A132338 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 22, 2013) (unpublished).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 On January 15, 2013, the First District, Division 5 ordered the prior unpublished decision to be published.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      In Marriage of Bailey & Nation, Case No. B236851 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 14, 2013) (unpublished), the appellate court reversed a needs-based fee award to husband because no evidence was adduced showing that ex-wife could afford to compensate him for his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

  No Exception to the Written Application Rule Applied Because Request Made At Non-Merits Hearing       The lower court in Marriage of Erb and White, Case No. D060486 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 14, 2013) (unpublished) properly rebuffed mother’s oral request for a needs-based fees award at a procedural motion proceeding to set a future

  Husband Did Show Pattern Of Needlessly Contesting Child Support Awards Over Time.      Cordray v. Lee, Case No. H036826 (6th Dist. Dec. 28, 2012) (unpublished) involved an unmarried couple with two children. In 1999, Father’s net worth was $10 million although in child support proceedings he tried to play up on subsequent financial losses–although

       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 Dec. 21, 2012) (unpublished) involved a dissolution proceeding for a 17 year marriage producing 3 kids.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      In Parker v. Harbert, Case No. A134060 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 19, 2012) (unpublished), husband, a prisoner at some times during the germane time, appealed a $92,000 atttorney’s fees/costs award (out of a requested $121,113.90) awarded to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 Dec. 10, 2012) (unpublished) could be a precursor of a lot more reversals of needs-based attorney’s fees awards in dissolution proceedings.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.