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 […]

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 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 6, 2023) (unpublished).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

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 Aug. 25, 2023) (unpublished) were litigating the validity of a martial settlement agreement (MSA) with a provision stating that each side would bear her/his own attorney’s fees.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

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 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 21, 2023) (unpublished) is a situation where a lower court imposed $100,000 in Family Code section 271 sanctions against ex-wife where she rejected four favorable settlement offers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,

Marriage of Hearn, Case No. A162932 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 10, 2023) (published)–$20,000 needs-based fee award to ex-wife under section 2030 was affirmed for two principal reasons:  (1) although unemployed now, ex-husband—an attorney—had superior future earning capacity than ex-wife had; and (2) ex-husband had vigorously represented himself in the dissolution case, while wife had

Appellate Court Was Bothered By Inconsistent Reasoning And Use Of Selective Evidence While Finding Appellant’s Proof Was Not Credible In Entirety.             In Swan v. Hatchett, Case Nos. A163825 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 29, 2023) (published), the lower court refused to consider ex-husband’s evidence as uncredible in child support modification and Family