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 Feb. 22, 2010) (unpublished) was an appellate decision affirming family law fee awards of $90,000 in favor of wife.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.
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 Shaffer v. Sassoon, Case No. B207219 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 30, 2009) (unpublished) is a case showing how Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers operate in determining the prevailing party, cementing that pre-offer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
