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
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 June 22, 2010) (unpublished)—an affirmance In this one, husband appealed a $10,000 sanctions award of fees to wife under Family Code section 271.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 Harrison v. Harrison, Case No. B211921 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 11, 2010) (unpublished) involved a fiery dissolution proceeding between ex-husband (a former pyrotechnician who started up his own business) and ex-wife (a mother of a small son who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
