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 Marriage of Polony, Case No. A123954 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 30, 2009) (unpublished) underscores two points among many that we have discussed previously on our blog.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 Nov. 12, 2009) (unpublished).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.
Fourth District, Division 2 So Holds in Unpublished Decision. In Marriage of Weatherup, Case No. E045519 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 29, 2009) (unpublished), the Court of Appeal affirmed a $90,000 attorney’s fees award in favor of wife and against husband, broken down as $35,000 in Family Code section 271 sanctions and $55,000
First District, Division 5 Rejects Plaintiff’s Inability to Pay Based on Failure to Submit Any Financial Evidence. The next case illustrates a lesson we see often in our “Family Law” category—if you are claiming fees should not be awarded or reduced on a “needs” basis, make sure you submit financial proof to back
Fourth District, Division 2 Stresses Need for Adequate Documentation of Need. In our category “Family Law,” we have reviewed numerous decisions that grant or deny (partially or entirely) fee requests for awards based on need under Family Code sections 2030/2032. Almost all the decisions, in line with California Rules of Court requirements, direct
Third District Reverses Trial Court Recognition of Fee Award from Britain. In the next one, Brits might think that we pesky U.S. rebels just have it in for them. Not quite, it simply was a technical interpretation of what awards can and cannot be enforced under the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act, Civil Code
Sixth District Looks At All the Relevant Circumstances Under Family Code Section 2030. Although we might think that this next lesson would be self evident, “litigating just to litigate” may get you into trouble. It also may have a spillover effect as far as influencing trial and appellate courts’ thought processes when it
Parent’s Ability to Pay Does Not Need to be Recalculated Every Time Minor’s Counsel Submits a Fee Bill. Courts can issue orders appointing counsel to represent the child under Family Code section 3150 in dissolution actions. The court has wide discretion to make the parents, rather than the County, responsible for the counsel fees.
