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for family law practitioners comes from Marriage of DeMarco, Case No. D055009 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 22, 2010) (unpublished).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#1 – Marriage of Fondario, Case No. E045156 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 14, 2010) (Unpublished).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
$21,936 Reallocation of Fees for Temporary Judge Was Error, Because Jurisdiction Was Lacking. The next case is a potential real pitfall for family law practitioners. It clearly counsels lawyers to make sure that certain fee/costs awards are ordered before a final judgment is entered or preserved pursuant to a reservation of jurisdiction.
Section 4320 Financial Needs Factors Are Irrelevant in Setting 271 Fee Award. Family Code section 271 is a sanctions-oriented fee shifting statute, allowing family law judges the ability to assess fees for litigation conduct that is “over the top” in the family law arena. Does a family law judge have to consider the financial
$19 Million in Fee Spent in McCourt’s Divorce. Frank McCourt has estimated his divorce-related expenses at $5-$10 million, while Jamie McCourt has estimated her expenses as $9 million (with Jamie asking Frank to pay them), all in the on-going and apparently acrimonious divorce proceeding between Los Angeles Dodger owner Frank and former officer Jamie.
Another Good Appellate Reminder from the Second District, Division 6. Husband wanted to challenge a $35,000 attorney’s fees award under Family Code section 2030 to wife on appeal. However, he failed to provide any supporting argument or citation to authority in his opening brief. He waited until the reply brief to do so. Too
Sixth District Especially Stresses Rules Relating to Appellate Appendices. Marriage of Thesing, Case No. H034272 (6th Dist. Feb. 22, 2010) (unpublished) was an appellate decision affirming family law fee awards of $90,000 in favor of wife. Many of the grounds sustaining the fee awards have been reviewed before—failure to timely appeal, failure to specify
Fact that Grandparents Sought Custody in Mexico and Financed Daughter’s California Efforts Did Not Support Fee Award Against Them. This next case involved a child custody imbroglio that took place in both California and Mexico between a former husband and wife, with wife’s parents (maternal grandparents) helping finance many of her fights—even though custody
No Abuse of Discretion Where Financial Disparity In Parties’ Income At Issue. In our category “Family Law,” we have reported on numerous cases awarding attorney’s fees to one side in a dissolution case. As with any other litigation, the circumstances are frequently the real difference in a decision one way or the other.
