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 Marriage of Pitto and Behrendt, Case No. A126802/A127429 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2012) (unpublished), involving a relatively short marriage, does reinforce certain lessons for us, basically two in number.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
Appeal Was Premature. In Marriage of Garcia, Case No. B231782 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 1, 2012) (unpublished), ex-wife appealed from a $1,000 “sanctions” order under Family Code section 2107(c), which does allow for imposition of attorney’s fees for a family law litigant not complying with family law provisions. (Apparently, she failed to
Record Did Demonstrate Disparity in Financial Incomes of Ex-Spouses. Marriage of Landau and Francis, Case No. B232575 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 30, 2012) (unpublished) involved ex-husband’s appeal of a Family Code section 2030/2032 needs-based fee award to wife of $30,000 lump sum. The fee award was affirmed. After all, under a
Mother’s Failure to Provide Detailed Financial Picture Ended Her Appellate Quest. Mother in Dorbie v. Fales, Case No. D059338 (4th Dist., Div. 1 May 24, 2012) (unpublished) challenged a Family Code section 271 $10,000 sanctions award on the basis she simply could not afford it. Unfortunately for her, the appellate court rejected
Court Rejects Suggestion That Fee Award and Sanction Cannot Be Made Against an Unemployed Person As “An Obviously Dangerous Rule” After a family law judge found that a marriage nullification petition by wife was “not that close,” he ordered $5,000 in fees to be paid to husband under Family Code section 2255 (successfully defending
Apparent Transparent Asset/Income Disparity Motivated Appellate Court to Look at the “Big Picture” in Remanding on 2030 Fee Issue. We predicted that Alan S.–an opinion from our local Santa Ana appellate court–would be a big one quoted often in the area of when needs-based fees should be awarded under Family Code section 2030.
Sanction Imposed After Oral Request At Hearing Overturned on Appeal. In Kleytman v. Pechonkina, Case No. A130779 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 24, 2012) (unpublished), ex-husband was assessed $1,500 in attorney’s fees as a Family Code section 271 sanction for filing a motion for reconsideration that was denied. Usually, that might not be
Determining Who Actually “Prevailed” Can Be Considered In Needs-Based Calculus. Wife was disappointed when a family law judge refused to award “needs-based” attorney’s fees under Family Code sections 2032 and 4320, apparently based in large part on the perspective that she did not “prevail” during the litigation. Our local Santa Ana appellate
