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.
Panel Quotes From Fourth District, Division 3 Colleagues in the Process. Who says appellate justices don’t read and admire the prose from fellow colleagues in the other state Courts of Appeal? Not us, as the next case demonstrates. Marriage of Silverman, Case No. B208172 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Sept. 8, 2009) (unpublished) involved
Second District, Division 1 Finds Unrepresented Wife Did Provide Adequate Financial Information, Whereas Represented Husband’s Failure to File Income and Expense Declaration Was Consequential. The next case illustrates that appellate court’s willingness to excuse technical violations may depend on whether the litigant is represented by counsel or representing himself/herself. In Marriage of Sherman,
Wife Awarded Interim Fees of $60,000 Based on “Need.” Many times in the past, in our category “Family Law Awards,” we have surveyed “needs based” fees awards in family law matters under Family Law Code sections 2030 and 2032. The main objective is to provide fees so that one of the litigants has a
But Fourth District, Division One Also Rules that on Remand,Trial Court May Consider Whatever Impact the Attorney’s Fees Have on Living Expenses and Resources. The typical attorney’s fees issue addressed by the courts in family law disputes is: who should pay attorney’s fees, and how much? The next case involves an altogether different
Fourth District, Division Three Holds that Whether the Proceedings Were Brought in Good Faith or in Earnest is Not Correct Legal Standard for Denying Fees. Park E. Dietz and Laura B. Dietz entered into a stipulated judgment in 1999, in which they divided their community property, including their accounts, and agreed that Park would
Appellant Joan Drelinger (Mother) registered in 2004 a 1973 order for child support issued in the State of Nevada, and sought to enforce the order. The trial court confirmed the order’s registration but found respondent Jay Drelinger (Father) had satisfied his child support obligation. The court deferred ruling on the parties’ competing motions for
State Bar’s Decision that Discipline Was Not Warranted Does Not Move Court to Overturn Sanctions Award. The genesis of the next case was a heart-rending child custody dispute that could be a made-for-television movie. Unfortunately, it was real life rather than entertainment. Robinson v. Charlton A., A104663 (1st Dist., Div. 2, July 27, 2009)
Result Follows from Application of Abuse of Discretion Standard. In Marriage of Lilyquist and Dova, Case No. A121052, A121716 (1st Dist., Div. 3, July 24, 2009) (unpublished), the Court held (1) that a retroactive order reallocating child support obligations of the father was not an abuse of discretion; and (2) that failure to
