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
Who “Won” is Irrelevant Here. Often, the Court’s retelling of the facts gives us more than an inkling of the ending. Here, the statement of facts begins: ”Jon and Sarah have both had acting careers, though their career paths diverged widely. As a costar in the TV show Two and a Half
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
