Ex-Wife Client Did Not Authorize the Filing of the Motion. The Sixth District just decided an interesting family law matter that involved interpretation of In re Marriage of Borson, 37 Cal.App.3d 632 (1974) and the case law spawned in this specific niche of family law. It affirmed a lower court’s denial of a Borson
Appellate Court Corrects Error, Reducing $10,000 Award Down to $7,500, Finding Ex-Husband Forfeited Most Claims on Appeal. This next opinion again shows that appellate practice is a specialty. An in pro per litigant or lawyer not skilled in appellate practice can find himself/herself forfeiting or waiving challenges because of the failure to present
Inadequate Record and Evidence Supporting Decision Guided Affirmance. The Sixth District in Marriage of Naim and Price, Case No. H035497 (6th Dist. Dec. 16, 2010) (unpublished) affirmed a needs-based attorney’s fees order of $7,149 to ex-wife. Husband’s challenges were rejected on these grounds: (1) the family law judge did not have to make
Marriage of Yassin and Aboutaleb, Case No. B205958 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 8, 2010) (Unpublished)–Case #1. Ex-husband was ordered to pay $5,000 to cover ex-wife fees and expenses under Family Code section 271, which permits the trial court to award fees as a sanctions for uncooperative or cost producing conduct. Although the
Court of Appeal Reminds Us That Abuse of Discretion Includes Not Exercising Discretion. Well, here is a lengthy unpublished family law decision (72 pages) which we will try to summarize succinctly. In essence, husband’s appeals on family law fee awards did not gain traction, while wife did better on her appeal of a failure
Ex-Wife Cannot Surmount Abuse of Discretion Review Standard. Family Code section 271, which we have explored many times before, is a statutory provision that allows family judges to sanction parties or litigants in family law proceedings where they fail to promote settlement or fail to cooperate so as to drive up costs. No actual
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 In Marriage of Booth, Case No. A127140 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 4, 2010) (unpublished), wife’s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
