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 Husband challenged two things in Marriage of Smith, Case No. B232161 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Oct. 10, 2012) (unpublished): (1) a needs-based Family Code 2030/2032 fee award of $9,000 to wife; and (2) refusal to award him […]
Marriage of De Monbrun, Case No. B236130 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 3, 2012) (unpublished) involved a husband’s challenge to a $10,000 sanction awarded to wife under Family Code section 271.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 Marriage of Sidiakina and Navid, Case No. A129313 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Sept. 24, 2012) (unpublished) is another due process reversal in a family case where a lower court awarded $74,200.78 in fees to husband even though he only requested an
Mossman v. Naranjo, Case No. D059054 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 18, 2012) (Unpublished)–CAR Form Real Estate Contract Covers Fees Won For Real Property Nondisclosure Claims.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 Husband in Marriage of Sun, Case No. A128964 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 11, 2012) (unpublished) appealed, among other things, a trial judge’s determination that neither side was worthy of an attorney’s fees award, even though
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 In Schnopp v. Schnopp, Case No. B236111 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Sept. 5, 2012) (unpublished), wife lost the merits of her claim that stock options based on performance constituted a bonus for which additional child support compensation was due, The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
