Cases: Family Law

The Reversal: Marriage of Schneider, Case No. B215675 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 24, 2010) (Unpublished).      This one involved Colorado litigation by ex-husband about ex-wife’s misappropriation of his personal property in a storage facility, which followed apparently contentious California dissolution proceedings. Husband claimed the misappropriated property was worth $363,000, but a Colorado jury only […]

  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

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 June 22, 2010) (unpublished)—an affirmance      In this one, husband appealed a $10,000 sanctions award of fees to wife under Family Code section 271.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      Harrison v. Harrison, Case No. B211921 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 11, 2010) (unpublished) involved a fiery dissolution proceeding between ex-husband (a former pyrotechnician who started up his own business) and ex-wife (a mother of a small son who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