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 The appellate panel in Marriage of D’Abo, Case No. B216056 (2d Dist., Div. 8 June 7, 2010) (unpublished) reminded us all that Family Code sections 2030/2032 “needs based” fee awards—made to level the playing field in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 May 28, 2010) (unpublished) is the 13th appellate proceeding initiated by wife, the respondent in a longtime marital dissolution action.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
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for family law practitioners comes from Marriage of DeMarco, Case No. D055009 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 22, 2010) (unpublished).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#1 – Marriage of Fondario, Case No. E045156 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 14, 2010) (Unpublished).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
