First District, Division Four Affirms Fee Award Made Under Family Code section 3153(a). Family Code section 3153 allows a court to order parents to pay the attorney’s fees for a court-appointed attorney for a minor in a custody dispute. The family law judge must consider the parent’s ability to pay in making this determination […]
Fourth District, Division 2 Finds Family Law Judge Relied on Inappropriate Factors. Here is one, even in this category, that we do not see often. A family law judge is reversed for considering inappropriate factors in awarding attorney’s fees to a wife under Family Code section 2030, the “needs” oriented fee-shifting statute. The lesson
Unpublished Decision Unremarkably Affirms Section 271 Sanctions and Awards Appellate Sanctions, But Remarkably Does Approve of “Estimated” Future Fee Approach in Fee Contests. The next decision we survey is not remarkable for its results: it affirmed a Family Code section 271 sanctions award of $9,500 and then imposed appellate sanctions of $7,500 for a
Fourth District, Division 3 Reverses Denial of Wife’s Request for Family Code section 271 Sanctions. The next case showcases a 30-year divorce saga between Jose and Janna Feliciano, who co-wrote and produced many popular songs, with one of the most famous being Feliz Navidad. A family law judge determined that Janna would not share
Fourth District, Division 2 Remands For Proper Determination, Using Applicable Legal Principles. In our category “Family Law Awards,” we frequently have surveyed decisions in which attorney’s fees were awarded to one side in a family law dispute based on “need” (Family Code sections 2030 and 2032) or as a “sanctions” because of litigious conduct
Third District Reverses Lower Court Deferring Award for Unspecified Period. Marriage of Shurr, Case No. C057456 (3d Dist. May 12, 2009) (unpublished) does remind us that procedural time limits do exist for a reason and are frequently enforced by their terms. A trial court failed to hear wife’s request for an award of attorney’s
Fourth District, Division 1 Finds Husband Had Income and Assets More Than 1600% Greater Than Wife. As the next case illustrates, most “needs”-based awards under Family Code section 2030 are reviewed under the deferential abuse of discretion standard. When that standard is used, an affirmance follows in most situations. Marriage of Carson, Case
L.A. Local Rule Had to Yield to Family Code Allowing for Oral Fee Request. In Sadegh v. Nikjeh, Case No. B201036 (2d Dist., Div. 2 May 6, 2009) (unpublished), a family law judge denied an oral request for a temporary “needs” attorney’s fees award under Family Code section 2031 because L.A. County Superior Court
Inadequate Record Dooms Appeal of $4,000 Fee Award Against Husband. In Marriage of Katz, Case No. G040685 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 5, 2009) (unpublished), the husband was ordered to pay $4,000 of his wife’s attorney’s fees under Family Code sections 2030/2032, even though wife sought fees of $5,562 for husband’s claimed failure to
Sixth District Rules Again On Dissolution Dispute Between Repeat Litigants. In Marriage of Falcone and Fyke, Cases Nos. H032396 & H032482 (6th Dist. May 1, 2009) (unpublished), the Sixth District dealt, yet again, with a former husband and wife that had been before it on numerous occasions. (We, too, have posted on their prior
