“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 Marriage of McIntyre and Shayan, Case No. B229106 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Jan. 6, 2012) (unpublished), although involving a pro per appellant husband losing a needs-based/sanctions fee award to wife, does reinforce certain principles that every appellant needs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
No Statement of Decision Required For Dissolution Fee Matters At the Time. Marriage of Carson, Case No. E052074 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 4, 2012) (unpublished) involved a husband who appealed orders requiring him to pay attorney’s fees to his wife under Family Code sections 271 (sanctions statute, for not fostering settlement) and
Marriage of Bader, Case No. G044876 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 21, 2011) (Unpublished). In this one, husband appealed a $20,000 needs-based attorney's fees award to wife (out of a requested $25,000) under Family Code sections 2030/2032. Husband claimed that the award had to be reversed because no express findings were made on
Marriage of Conrad, Case No. D058756 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 20, 2011) (Unpublished).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 Marriage of Richard, Case No. B223552 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 14, 2011) (unpublished) is interesting to show just how long cases can go and the breadth of family law judge discretion when imposing sanctions under Family Code section 271.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
