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 The lesson in Marriage of Walter, Case No. B225762 (2d Dist., Div. 6 June 2, 2011) (unpublished) is not that spectacular as far as results: the appellate court affirmed a needs-based attorney’s fees award of $3,250 under Family Code section 2030 in […]
Second District, Division 6 Does So While Affirming $75,000 Sanctions Award. In Marriage of Lancashire, Case No. B217022 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 23, 2011) (unpublished), the Second District, Division 6 discussed deadlines for bringing attorney’s fees motions based on sanctionable conduct of family law litigants under Family Code section 271 before it
Appellate Court Stresses Civility, Reminding Us It Is Not Mutually Exclusive With Zealous Advocacy. This case is destined to be cited and likely quoted often both in the areas of family law fee sanctions under Family Code section 271 and attorney civility. In re Marriage of Davenport, Case No. A126181 (1st Dist.,
Appeal Deemed Frivolous, With Reminding Words of Wisdom to Those Choosing to Appeal. Justice Yegan of the Second District, Division 6 on behalf of a 3-0 panel, has penned a decision with some sobering reminders on the nuances of appellate practice, and is likely going to be quoted down the line. In
Here we go–a family law attorney’s fees two-fer. Bondarenko v. Buehrle, Case No. A128933 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 27, 2011) (Unpublished). This one involves an affirmance of a $5,000 Family Code section 271 sanctions award against former boyfriend/father in an acrimonious visitation dispute with former girlfriend/mother of their chid Beau. The main
Fourth District, Division 2 Issues Writ of Mandate. Before we wish all of our readers a Happy Easter (and a post-Happy Passover or other celebrations at this time of year), we report on Smith v. Superior Court (Smith), Case No. E053048 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 22, 2011) (unpublished). There, in a family
The Court of Appeals Finds Trial Court’s Order “Puzzling” Husband and wife’s marriage dissolved in 1992. In 2009, the now ex-husband filed an OSC to modify or terminate his spousal support obligation, because he planned to retire. The trial court denied the OSC, while ordering the 66-year old ex-wife to make efforts to become
Don’t Ignore Civil Code § 1708.6(c) . . . . But It Is Discretionary In Nature. Here is a nice fee entitlement statute in the domestic violence tort area (bet a lot of you did not know there was such a statutory tort). Civil Code section 1708.6(c) expressly provides that the court in
Ex-Wife Not Give Proper Due Process Opportunity to Oppose. We knew this one was a reversal from the first few sentences–“Summary proceedings are common in family law cases. Nevertheless, however certain a court may be that a party or an attorney in a family law proceeding deserves sanctions, it must keep in mind
Second District, Division 3 Reverses $200,000 Award Under Family Code Section 2107(c), But Sustains $100,000 Fee Award Under Section 271. Facing a novel issue of statutory interpretation, the Second District, Division 3 in In re Marriage of Fong, Case No. B217038 (2d Dist., Div. 3 March 3, 2011) (certified for publication) decided that
