Marriage of Conrad, Case No. D058756 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 20, 2011) (Unpublished). In this one, husband was ordered to pay wife $2,200 in attorney’s fees. She claimed this was not enough, even though the opinion talked about an admission that wife was a compulsive buyer (apropos in this Yuletime season, we […]
Wrapping It Up: M & M’s Top 25 Attorney’s Fees Decisions For 2011 Part 1 of 2 It is that time of year, at year end, for us to list our top published attorney’s fees decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and California Courts of Appeal. Although we normally
Wife Had Not Cooperated in Sale of Couple’s Property and Nixed Top-of-the-Market Offer. Marriage of Richard, Case No. B223552 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 14, 2011) (unpublished) is interesting to show just how long cases can go and the breadth of family law judge discretion when imposing sanctions under Family Code section 271.
Garner v. Aronson, Case No. B228396 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Dec. 9, 2011) (Unpublished). In this one, additional attorney’s fees were denied to wife for one simple reason: the work of her attorneys was of little value to the process of resolving and litigating the controversy towards a resolution. (In re Marriage of
Failure to Reserve Jurisdiction May Be Costly. The Second District, Division 6 provides all family law practitioners with an important reminder to make sure attorney’s fees is a reserved issue for future consideration by a family law judge in a judgment. A $10,000 fee award to husband under Family Code section 1101 (breach
She Was Hit With Other Need-Based Fees Along the Way. “In a scenario all too familiar to bench officers who have dealt with family law matters, the former spouses who are parties here have been involved in ongoing litigation which now exceeds the duration of their marriage. This case is before us for
$10,000 Fee Award to Wife Reversed by Fifth District. This next case demonstrates that unsworn statements about the nature of fee work will not support a fee award in the family law arena, much less other arenas. The Fifth District, in Marriage of Monroe, Case No. F061014 (5th Dist. Nov. 14, 2011)
Contractual Bargain Resulted in a Waiver and Enforced. Marriage of Guilardi, Case No. H035037 (6th Dist. Nov. 7, 2011) (certified for publication) pitted the fees clause in a marital settlement agreement (MSA) against the Family Code section 2030 needs-based statutory scheme. The contractual bargain in the MSA won out. The MSA addressed
No, Love Lost as Fourth District, Division One Reverses JNOV Disfavorable to Initially Losing Litigant, Who Won a Jury Verdict, Was Then Overturned Post-trial, and Was Vindicated on Appeal. This one caught our attention because of the appellate court’s rather subdued characterization of it being a “somewhat unusual case.” Wow! This is one
Financial Need Only One of the Factors to Consider. Although we have posted often about needs-based fee awards under Family Code sections 2030/2032, the next case reminds us that a multi-factored analysis is required under these fee shifting provisions. Even a former spouse with sufficient resources to pay can get a fee award
