Cases: Family Law

Family Law: Ex-Husband’s Pre-Marriage Contractual Debt, Including Attorney’s Fees Liquidated Later Through A Post-Separation Award, Were Properly Characterized As A Responsibility Of Ex-Wife

Cases: Family Law

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                Although unpublished, Marriage of Ferris, Case No. A165952 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 15, 2024) (unpublished) may be an eye opener for spouses who may not have been informed about contractual debts incurred by […]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 Law, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: Court Of Appeal Decides Current Version Of Domestic Violence Prevention Act, Applies Retroactively To Cases After 2023, Justifying A Fee Award

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

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

Family Law, Fee Clause Interpretation, Indemnity: Some Parts Affirmed, Some Parts Reversed And Remanded In Appeal Involving Community Or Separate Property Liability For Indemnification Obligations

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity

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

Family Law: In Case Involving Criminal and SEC Insider Trading Proceedings, Appellate Court Determines That Ex-Husband’s Criminal Fees Constituted A Separate Debt But That Ex-Wife Was Liable For, As A Community Obligation, Some Of The SEC Insider Tradi

Cases: Family Law

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

Family Law: Fee Awards To Ex-Wife Under Section 271 And Minors’ Counsel Under Section 3153 Were Affirmed On Appeal

Cases: Family Law

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

Family Law: $300,000 271 Sanctions Order Against Ex-Husband Was Reversed And Remanded On A Narrow Issue

Cases: Family Law

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

Family Law: 2/8 DCA Affirms Base Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Award Plus $1,000 Per Day For Non-Compliance Purposes

Cases: Family Law

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

Appealability, Family Law: Denial Of Fees To Ex-Wife Under Family Code Section 3121 Was No Abuse Of Discretion Because The Matters Before The Trial Judge Were Unrelated To Child Custody Issues

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Family Law

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

Family Law: While Ex-Wife and Ex-Husband Were Litigating The Validity Of A Marital Settlement Agreement With An “Each Side Bears Own Fees” Clause, Lower Court Still Properly Awarded Family Code Section 2030 Need-Based Fees To Ex-Wife

Cases: Family Law

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

Family Law: $100,000 Section 271 Sanctions Award Affirmed Where Ex-Wife Refused Three Pretrial Settlement Offers And A Post-trial Offer Which Were All Favorable To Her

Cases: Family Law

Ex-Husband Had To Spend $208,000 To Prepare For And Engage In Trial.             Marriage of Prunchunas, Case Nos. B319493 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 21, 2023) (unpublished) is a situation where a lower court imposed $100,000 in Family Code section 271 sanctions against ex-wife where she rejected four favorable settlement offers by ex-husband,

Scroll to Top