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 Marriage of Tossey, Case No. G044484 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Aug. 16, 2012) (unpublished), authored by Justice Aronson on behalf of a 3-0 panel, reminds us once again that due process issues are important to appellate courts when deciding appeals.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 Aug. 16, 2012) (unpublished), husband challenged the award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 Aug. 16, 2012) (unpublished) caught our eye because of its discussion of the legislative amendments to Family Code section 2030, the “needs based” fee authorization in family law matters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 Marriage of Pitto and Behrendt, Case No. A126802/A127429 (1st Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2012) (unpublished), involving a relatively short marriage, does reinforce certain lessons for us, basically two in number.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
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 In Marriage of Garcia, Case No. B231782 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 1, 2012) (unpublished), ex-wife appealed from a $1,000 “sanctions” order under Family Code section 2107(c), which does allow for imposition of attorney’s fees for a family law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 Marriage of Landau and Francis, Case No. B232575 (2d Dist., Div. 8 May 30, 2012) (unpublished) involved ex-husband’s appeal of a Family Code section 2030/2032 needs-based fee award to wife of $30,000 lump sum.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
