Family Code Section 271(a) Mandates Consideration Of Ability To Pay. Although we have posted on this before, Family Code section 271(a) mandates that a family law judge takes into consideration a litigant’s ability to pay when assessing section 271 sanctions. In Jayasuriya v. Jayasuriya, Case Nos. A166864 et al. (1st Dist., div. 3 Mar. […]
It Did Not Matter If The Debt Was Incurred Before Marriage Or If The Fee Award Was Fixed After Separation. Although unpublished, Marriage of Ferris, Case No. A165952 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 15, 2024) (unpublished) may be an eye opener for spouses who may not have been informed about contractual debts incurred by
Family Code Section 6344 Applies Retroactively. In Dragones III v. Calkins, Case No. B329659 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 17, 2024) (published), the 2/7 DCA confronted whether Family Code section 6344, effective 2023, made it easier for a prevailing petitioner to obtain fees and harder for a prevailing respondent to obtain fees in actions
Also, Fee/Costs Award Under Indemnity Agreement Only Recoverable Against Ex-Husband, A Signatory To The Agreement, But No Fee Exposure Under The Third-Party Indemnity Provision; Needs-Based Fees Paid To Both Spouses Are Separate Debts Of Husband For His Need-Based Fees And Community Debts For Fees To Both Spouses. Acting Presiding Justice Moore, in In re
Ex-Wife Had To Bear $931,000 In Fees, Much Lower Than Multi-Millions In Fees Incurred By Husband. In re Marriage of Whitman, Case No. A157055 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 29, 2023) (partially published) involved ex-husband, a hedge fund founder, who incurred multi-millions in fees defending himself in a criminal insider trading case and a
Ex-Husband Did Have Ability To Pay, With The Lower Court Structuring The Fee Recovery To Ameliorate Hardship. Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth, on behalf of a 3-0 panel, authored Marriage of Lou and Ma, Case No. G061015 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 6, 2023) (unpublished). Ex-husband in a dissolution case appealed an award
Because Ex-Husband Did Timely Pay An Earlier Discovery Sanctions, 271 Sanctions Order Had To Be Revisited Based On Lower Court Error On This Discrete Issue. Family Code section 271 sanctions can be steep. This is a statutory provision that allows considerable leeway to a lower court to impose sanctions in a dissolution proceeding against
Justice Wiley, In Concurring, Shows Why This Is A Necessary Result Given Public Discontent About The Costs Of Modern Litigation. I guess one could say that Marriage of Andrew and Rangell, Case No. B313786 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 28, 2023) (published) is simply an affirmance, primarily, of Family Code section 271 sanctions award
However, Ex-Wife’s Appeal From The Final Judgment Was Timely Because the Interim Order Denying Fees Was Not A Separately Appealable Order. The main lesson from Marriage of Davis, Case No. D080980 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 18, 2023) (unpublished) is a simple one: if you are seeking fees, make sure you have a fee
MSA Was Not Preemptive In Nature. Ex-wife and ex-husband in Mathur v. Mathur, Case No. H050018 (6th Dist. Aug. 25, 2023) (unpublished) were litigating the validity of a martial settlement agreement (MSA) with a provision stating that each side would bear her/his own attorney’s fees. The lower court still awarded ex-wife $61,455 in need-based
