Cases: Family Law

  Here we go–a family law attorney’s fees two-fer. Bondarenko v. Buehrle, Case No. A128933 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 27, 2011) (Unpublished).      This one involves an affirmance of a $5,000 Family Code section 271 sanctions award against former boyfriend/father in an acrimonious visitation dispute with former girlfriend/mother of their chid Beau. The main

Fourth District, Division 2 Issues Writ of Mandate.      Before we wish all of our readers a Happy Easter (and a post-Happy Passover or other celebrations at this time of year), we report on Smith v. Superior Court (Smith), Case No. E053048 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 22, 2011) (unpublished).      There, in a family

Second District, Division 3 Reverses $200,000 Award Under Family Code Section 2107(c), But Sustains $100,000 Fee Award Under Section 271.      Facing a novel issue of statutory interpretation, the Second District, Division 3 in In re Marriage of Fong, Case No. B217038 (2d Dist., Div. 3 March 3, 2011) (certified for publication) decided that

    Lower Court Also Did Consider Wife’s Financial Condition in Rendering Award.        Here is another Family Code section 271 award that was affirmed on appeal based on the abuse of discretion standard. This is a tough standard to surmount, as wife learned in challenging a $5,000 award to husband.      In Marriage

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