Second District, Division 8 Sustains Family Law Commissioner Across the Board. Well, ex-husband in the next one—who lost an attempt to have custody of his children shifted from his ex-wife—was hit with an order directing him to pay past arrearages to wife for attorney’s fees awards as well as hit with an additional award […]
Halverson v. Seymour, Case No H032446 (6th Dist. June 22, 2010) (unpublished)—an affirmance In this one, husband appealed a $10,000 sanctions award of fees to wife under Family Code section 271. C’mon, is what the appellate court basically said on this one. There was evidence showing husband purchased a daycare facility and expensive jewelry
However, He Still Owes Ex-Wife Attorney’s Fees To Level The Playing Field. Harrison v. Harrison, Case No. B211921 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 11, 2010) (unpublished) involved a fiery dissolution proceeding between ex-husband (a former pyrotechnician who started up his own business) and ex-wife (a mother of a small son who was a stay-at-home
Fourth District, Division 2 Affirms Based on Violation of Fundamental Appellate Tenet—Present A Complete Record; Also, Co-contributor Marc Gets A Puppy! We don’t mean to be preachy (although we probably are at times), but the next case reinforces a crucial appellate practice reminder—one stressed by both practitioners and jurists alike—which is to make
Second District, Division 8 Acknowledges that Needy Loser May Be Entitled to Fee Award During Contentious Dissolution Proceedings. The appellate panel in Marriage of D’Abo, Case No. B216056 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 7, 2010) (unpublished) reminded us all that Family Code sections 2030/2032 “needs based” fee awards—made to level the playing field in
Thirteenth Appellate Proceedings By Wife In Longtime Dissolution Action Ends in Affirmance. Marriage of Falcone and Fyke, Case No. H033619 (6th Dist. May 28, 2010) (unpublished) is the 13th appellate proceeding initiated by wife, the respondent in a longtime marital dissolution action. Wife moved for a needs-based award of attorney’s fees under Family
$4,000 Out of $25,000 Expended by Husband Found to be No Abuse of Discretion. Link to our category “Family Law” to discover lots of posts on Family Code section 271. This statutory provision allows family law judges to sanction cantankerous litigants with attorney’s fees for failing to promote settlement or cooperation in family law
Attorney’s Fees, Transportation/Lodging, and Appellate Expenses Appropriate Under 42 U.S.C. § 11607(b)(3). 42 U.S.C. § 11607(b)(3) provides that a court “ordering the return of a child” under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction shall award “necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the petitioner . . . unless
Court Notes that Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Are Broader in Scope. An important reminder for family law practitioners comes from Marriage of DeMarco, Case No. D055009 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 22, 2010) (unpublished). There, the appellate court reversed a $50,000 sanctions/fee award granted against a husband for breaching his fiduciary duties
#1 – Marriage of Fondario, Case No. E045156 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 14, 2010) (Unpublished). In the first one, a $13,000 fee award to wife was affirmed as a sanction against husband under Family Code section 271. The lower court did not err in considering such factors of uncooperativeness as rejection of numerous
