Family Judge Does Not Have To Expressly State Whether Consideration Was Given to Financial Burdens. An ex-wife in In re Marriage of Loumena, Case Nos. H032608/H033027 (6th Dist. Feb. 8, 2011) (unpublished) was hit with a sanctions award of $100,000 (out of a requested $355,000, $250,000 of which comprised attorney’s fees) […]
Majority So Holds, But Dissent Argues Contention Forfeited and Section 1101(g) Needs Revision By the Legislature. Here is an interesting one in the family law area, drawing a dissent by a former family law jurist that now sits on the appellate court. In Marriage of Fossum, Case No. B214824 (2d Dist., Div. 1
Fourth District, Division 3 Reaffirms Fundamental Precept of Appellate Practice. If one is going to do appellate work, creating an adequate record is a must. After all, the appellate court has nothing before it in a case except for what the litigants provide it. The lack of an adequate appellate record in the next
Second District, Division 6 Finds that Prenuptial Agreement Fee Waiver Only Related to Property/Spousal Issues and that California Would Not Enforce Waiver With Respect to Child Issues. Husband and wife entered into a prenuptial agreement under Michigan law where, among other things, they agreed to waive any attorney’s fees resulting from any divorce,
Ex-Wife Client Did Not Authorize the Filing of the Motion. The Sixth District just decided an interesting family law matter that involved interpretation of In re Marriage of Borson, 37 Cal.App.3d 632 (1974) and the case law spawned in this specific niche of family law. It affirmed a lower court’s denial of a Borson
Appellate Court Corrects Error, Reducing $10,000 Award Down to $7,500, Finding Ex-Husband Forfeited Most Claims on Appeal. This next opinion again shows that appellate practice is a specialty. An in pro per litigant or lawyer not skilled in appellate practice can find himself/herself forfeiting or waiving challenges because of the failure to present
Inadequate Record and Evidence Supporting Decision Guided Affirmance. The Sixth District in Marriage of Naim and Price, Case No. H035497 (6th Dist. Dec. 16, 2010) (unpublished) affirmed a needs-based attorney’s fees order of $7,149 to ex-wife. Husband’s challenges were rejected on these grounds: (1) the family law judge did not have to make
Marriage of Yassin and Aboutaleb, Case No. B205958 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 8, 2010) (Unpublished)–Case #1. Ex-husband was ordered to pay $5,000 to cover ex-wife fees and expenses under Family Code section 271, which permits the trial court to award fees as a sanctions for uncooperative or cost producing conduct. Although the
Court of Appeal Reminds Us That Abuse of Discretion Includes Not Exercising Discretion. Well, here is a lengthy unpublished family law decision (72 pages) which we will try to summarize succinctly. In essence, husband’s appeals on family law fee awards did not gain traction, while wife did better on her appeal of a failure
Ex-Wife Cannot Surmount Abuse of Discretion Review Standard. Family Code section 271, which we have explored many times before, is a statutory provision that allows family judges to sanction parties or litigants in family law proceedings where they fail to promote settlement or fail to cooperate so as to drive up costs. No actual
