Decision Deals with Family Law Attorney’s Real Property Lien. In our July 20, 2011 post, we discussed In re Marriage of Ramirez, a decision exploring the intricacies of the family law attorney’s real property lien. We can now report that the case was certified for publication on August 11, 2011.
Family Code Section 271 Sanctioning Authority Justified $3,000 Fee Award Against Ex-Wife. Acting Justice Bedsworth, on behalf of a 3-0 panel, affirmed a $3,000 award against ex-wife based on Family Code section 271. That section imposes a “minimum level of professionalism and cooperation” to effectuate settlement in the family law area and authorizes
In Marriage of Metzger, Case No. B220951 (2d Dist., Div. 3 July 21, 2011) (unpublished), wife appealed a $40,000 award of attorney’s fees to her as too low in a dissolution action when husband admitted that he spent close to $300,000 during the course of proceedings. The appellate court found that it
Family Code Section 2033 FLARPL Considered. Although there was a reversal because an order rendered without an indispensable party is void (with the appellant being an indispensable party able to challenge the void order), the appellate court in Marriage of Ramirez, Case No. D058284 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 19, 2011) (unpublished) discussed
Needs Based Award to Wife Justified. In Marriage of Shannahan, Case No. D057453 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 18, 2011) (unpublished), husband was ordered to pay $25,000 in attorney’s fees based on need to ex-wife’s counsel. Husband, after all, was an attorney, and appealed a previous fee award to wife without posting a
Marriage of Wolf, Case No. A128509 (1st Dist., Div. 3 July 15, 2011) (Unpublished). In this one, ex-wife was denied a request for attorney’s fees after a lower court found there were no reasonable grounds for her appeal. However, the lower court’s decision was without prejudice to her ability to renew the motion
Alan S. Was the Anchor Here, Meaning that Some Record of Relevant Factor Analysis Is Necessary in Family Law Cases. Although unpublished, the next case seems to portend the importance of Alan S. v. Superior Court, 172 Cal.App.4th 238 (2009), a decision authored by (just retired) Justice Sills of the Fourth
She Has To Pay $26,650 In Appellate Fees And Costs To Husband Under Needs-Based Statute. We knew one would not go well for the loser–in this case, the ex-wife–when the appellate court ominously observed early on: “This case is before us for the fourth time.” It didn’t. Ex-wife lost two prior fee
Choice of Law–California Law Applies Across the Board If It Is the Governing Choice of Law on Fee Issues. In our prior posts of June 11, 2008 and January 21, 2010, we discussed decisions indicating that Civil Code section 1717’s reciprocity principle is a fundamental California interest trumping unilateral fee clauses governed by
No Particular Order Wording Needed to Show Relevant Financial Factors Weighed. The lesson in Marriage of Walter, Case No. B225762 (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 2, 2011) (unpublished) is not that spectacular as far as results: the appellate court affirmed a needs-based attorney’s fees award of $3,250 under Family Code section 2030 in
