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this time of year), we report on Smith v. Superior Court (Smith), Case No. E053048 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 22, 2011) (unpublished).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
The Court of Appeals Finds Trial Court’s Order “Puzzling” Husband and wife’s marriage dissolved in 1992. In 2009, the now ex-husband filed an OSC to modify or terminate his spousal support obligation, because he planned to retire. The trial court denied the OSC, while ordering the 66-year old ex-wife to make efforts to become
Don’t Ignore Civil Code § 1708.6(c) . . . . But It Is Discretionary In Nature. Here is a nice fee entitlement statute in the domestic violence tort area (bet a lot of you did not know there was such a statutory tort). Civil Code section 1708.6(c) expressly provides that the court in
Ex-Wife Not Give Proper Due Process Opportunity to Oppose. We knew this one was a reversal from the first few sentences–“Summary proceedings are common in family law cases. Nevertheless, however certain a court may be that a party or an attorney in a family law proceeding deserves sanctions, it must keep in mind
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
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 Feb. 8, 2011) (unpublished) was hit with a sanctions award of $100,000 (out of a requested $355,000, $250,000 of which comprised attorney’s fees)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,
