Payout to Wife at $750/Month Was Reasonable. Husband was found by a family law judge to have withdrawn community funds without wife’s consent, rented out a family home unilaterally, ignored income and expense declaration filing deadlines, was dilatory during the discovery process, and presented a disorganized trial brief that prolonged the trial. As […]
Wife’s Appeal from Three Awards Dismissed for Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction. Wife obviously was unhappy with three different fee awards entered against her at various times in Marriage of Powell and Powell, Case No. A129916 (Apr. 5, 2012) (unpublished): one that she pay $120,000 to husband for losing a prior appeal and based
Marriage of Rice and Eaton, No. C066860 (3d Dist. Apr. 4, 2012) (partially published; 271 discussion unpublished). Although the published part is an interesting discussion of the impact of Department of Child Support Services contempt proceedings on wife’s OSC to obtain enforcement of delinquent child support payments, the unpublished part relating to fees
Marriage of Csupo, Case No. B227959 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 27, 2012) (unpub). In this one, the trial court terminated the husband’s obligation to continue paying attorney’s fees under a pendente lite order, a determination affirmed on appeal after husband paid $30,000 under the earlier $180,000 fee mandate, after wife apparently fired
We Learn Something Everyday. The great thing about this blog is that we learn something everyday. One of our readers called in and, in the process of discussing an issue, he informed us that his research revealed that CCP § 998 offers are not operative in family law proceedings. In re
Failure to Specify Statutory Basis For Fee Award Was Not Reversible Error. Husband in Marriage of Fong, Case No. B233513 (2d Dist., Div. 3) (unpublished) got hit with a $180,000 adverse award of attorney’s fees in favor of wife under various Family Code sections based on need or sanctioning authority–areas we have discussed
Appellate Frivolous Sanctions Also Awarded Against Appellant/Her Counsel. Marriage of Wahl and Perkins, Case No. H035712 (6th Dist. Feb. 2, 2012) (certified for publication) is a situation where an ex-wife was ordered to pay $552,153.28 as a fee “sanctions” to ex-husband under Family Code section 271. (For any newbees or anyone who might
“Big” Picture Was Considered By Family Judge, Especially Where Husband Had Substantial Assets And Outspent Wife By Almost Double In Dissolution Fees. As we predicted in our post of March 21, 2009, family law practitioners would use “big” picture language from Alan S. v. Superior Court, 172 Cal.App.4th 238 (2009) in arguing that
Appellant Failed to Provide Fair Statement of Evidence or Support Argument With Proper Analysis. Marriage of McIntyre and Shayan, Case No. B229106 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 6, 2012) (unpublished), although involving a pro per appellant husband losing a needs-based/sanctions fee award to wife, does reinforce certain principles that every appellant needs to
Court of Appeal Determines Scope of Section 2102(c) and Reminds Practitioners That Section 2030/2032 Fees Are Based on Relative Needs Even With High Net Worth Spouses. Marriage of Sorge, Case Nos. D57677/58611 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 5, 2012) (certified for publication) reversed a Family Code section 2102(c) breach of fiduciary duty sanctions
