Court of Appeal Did Not Condone Keeping OSC Contempt Hearing On Calendar With No Intent to Proceed. The next one is an object lesson, likely reinforcing that sanctions can follow from not showing professional courtesy–at the least. In Marriage of Booth, Case No. A127140 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 4, 2010) (unpublished), wife’s […]
Husband Failed to Meet His Burden on Appeal. Husband beat wife’s prior fee shifting, needs-based denial simply because she failed to file an updated income and expense statement under local rules. Unruffled, wife renewed the request later and added more fodder, seeking a total of $320,510.50 in fees for periods stretching back to Fall
Fifth District Also Assigns Matter to Different Judicial Officer Based On Appearance He Was Not Impartial. Well, this next one is a doozy. You knew it would be when the appellate court intersperses these quotes: “Somewhere along the line, litigation must cease” (In re Marriage of Crook, 2 Cal.App.4th 1606, 1613 (1992)) and “trial
Fourth District, Division 1 Serves a Stern Reminder to Litigants Seeking “Needs Based” Awards. Marriage of Mells, Case No. D055917 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 9, 2010) (unpublished) is a situation where mother obtained a substantial child support arrearages award against father as well as awards of $7,500 in attorney’s fees and $2,778.24 in
Sixth District Finds Award Was No Abuse of Discretion The next case counsels litigants caught up in family law proceedings to be candid with the trial judge with respect to submission of financial evidence. Failure to be candid frequently will negatively impact the merits, as well as influence the court’s thinking on awarding
Fourth District, Division 2 Finds Substantial Justification for Motion to Quash Subpoenas Code of Civil Procedure section 1987.2 provides for an award of reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees to a party making or opposing a motion to quash a subpoena if his/her actions were made in bad faith or undertaken without substantial justification. Usually,
The Reversal: Marriage of Schneider, Case No. B215675 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 24, 2010) (Unpublished). This one involved Colorado litigation by ex-husband about ex-wife’s misappropriation of his personal property in a storage facility, which followed apparently contentious California dissolution proceedings. Husband claimed the misappropriated property was worth $363,000, but a Colorado jury only
Third Party Claimant May Have No Standing to Receive 2030 Needs Award in Dissolution Proceeding, While Attorney May Lack Standing to Appeal Borson Motion Denial. The interesting thing about this blog is what we learn each day from reading and then posting on various decisions. Here, we learned about motions brought under Marriage
Second District, Division 8 Affirms Trial Court’s Conclusion That Fees Not Justified Under “Needs Based” Family Code Section 2030. Ex-wife, whose resources were in the eight figures (given that ex-husband was wealthy based on his ownership interest in a private held Delaware corporation), sought to recoup $692,000 in attorney’s fees for efforts in
Fourth District, Div. Two, Upholds $5,000 Award in Attorney’s Fees to Wife, Where Husband Failed to Cite Evidence Supporting a Denial of the Request for Fees. Mr. Parga sought to terminate his spousal support obligations to his former wife. The court denied the husband’s request and awarded the wife $5,000 in attorney’s fees. An
