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. […]
Remand to Trial Court Under CRC 3.1702(c) and 8.278(c)(1). In Bardales v. Duarte, Case No. D048239 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 8, 2010) (certified for publication), the Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court determination that it had the power to dismiss a petition seeking return of children under the Hague Convention on
No Statutory Bases Existed For Fee Award or “Needs Based” Award Made Without Consideration of Proper Factors. Former husband was assessed with adverse fee orders in family-related partition and quiet title actions involving his son and ex-wife. He appealed and won in Marriage of Lira, Case No. D054050 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 15,
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds Guardianship Petition Should Have Been Dismissed. In our May 9 and August 22, 2009 posts, we explored developments in a petition brought by Paul Petersen to undertake certain actions for the alleged benefit of the octuplets of Nadya Suleman. The main battle was Mr. Petersen’s efforts to obtain an
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 Shaffer v. Sassoon, Case No. B207219 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 30, 2009) (unpublished) is a case showing how Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers operate in determining the prevailing party, cementing that pre-offer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 Dec. 29, 2009) (unpublished), the Third District found that the family law court did not abuse its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees of $75,000 to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
