Pre-Offer Costs Showed Plaintiffs Did Beat the 998 Offer. In the next case, defendants/respondents received a “misfortune cookie.” Shaffer v. Sassoon, Case No. B207219 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 30, 2009) (unpublished) is a case showing how Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers operate in determining the prevailing party, cementing that pre-offer […]
Fourth District, Division 3 Uniformly Reverses One Award, But Splinters On Overturning Another Fee Award. Here is a very interesting family law decision involving two fee awards, drawing both uniformity and conflict from our own Fourth District, Division 3. The case is Marriage of Reddi, Case No. G040864 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec.
Appellate Court Found No Abuse of Discretion, With Failure to Provide Transcript of Fee Motion Sealing Amount of the Award. In Marriage of Nair, Case No. C059661 (3d Dist. Dec. 29, 2009) (unpublished), the Third District found that the family law court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees of $75,000 to
Part 1 of 2: First Ten Grouping—Nos. 11-20. As noted in an earlier post, we have accumulated our “top 20” attorney’s fees decisions, recognizing that we limit the list to published decisions and that the order reflects nothing about the importance of the decision. Rather, we try to survey decisions of interest in different
Spousal Support Settlement Showed Ability to Pay By Wife; Wife’s Refusal to Sign Escrow Instructions Justified Sanctions. In our category “Family Law,” we have many times explored the bases for fee awards under Family Code sections 2030/2032 and sanctions awards under Family Code section 271. Here is another one, which shows that awards will
Second District, Division 7 Has Nice Survey of Family Code Sections 2030 and 271 Fee Awards in Unpublished Opinion. Family law proceedings, including fee and sanctions hearings, invoke the full range of emotions. The awards, too, can be substantial, depending on the wealth of the parties involved. The next case sustained substantial fee awards
First District, Division 3 Makes These Points In Affirmance and Reversal of Rulings Below. Marriage of Polony, Case No. A123954 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 30, 2009) (unpublished) underscores two points among many that we have discussed previously on our blog. Point #1 is make sure you timely appeal a fees order—and do
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds No Predicate Basis Under CCP Section 724.080 to Award Fees For Failing To Record a Judgment Satisfaction. Here is a Thanksgiving gift to everyone in a wild family law dispute. We knew that this one would be good when it began this way: “Family law cases, as we said
1. Marriage of Bareket and Marcus, Case No. H032760 (6th Dist. Nov. 12, 2009) (unpublished). In this one, former husband was awarded attorney’s fees as the “prevailing party,” with the family law judge not specifying that it was a sanction or there was a contractual predicate for the award. Result? Reversal. “We are not
Second District, Division 8 Affirms Family Law Judge’s Fee Ruling. Dr. Michael Mellman is well known for having served as a team physician for the Los Angeles Dodgers and Los Angeles Kings. The next case illustrates that even celebrities get to suffer the sting of attorney’s fees as a result of litigation matters.
