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 May 1, 2009) (unpublished), the Sixth District dealt, yet again, with a former husband and wife that had been before it on numerous occasions.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 […]
First District, Division 3 Affirms Fee Denial; Wife Also Hit With $4,000 in Sanctions Under Section 271. Ex-wife was married over 18 years to a successful attorney, who was apparently generous in both support payments and settlement equalizations in dissolution proceedings—at least according to the Court of Appeal. There were substantial assets to divide,
Second District, Division 6 Affirms Award Based on Family Code section 271. We have under our category “Family Law” discussed on many occasions the application of Family Code section 271, a sanctions-designed statute allowing attorney’s fees to be assessed against a family law litigant that is uncooperative, subverts resolution of disputes, and increases the
Fourth District, Division 1 Offers a Tutorial on Section 271 Awards. Under our category “Family Law,” we have surveyed past attorney’s fees awards under various sections of the Family Code because, after all, we are an equal opportunity blogger and like to survey fee decisions across the board in California. One of the most
Fourth District, Division 3 Finds He Violated Fundamental Tenet of Appellate Practice—Failure to Provide an Adequate Record. Disgruntled husband was hit with a $1,500 adverse fee award assessed by a family law judge and made payable to wife’s attorney. Presumably, the award was made under Family Code section 271, which is a sanctions statute
Family Code Section 271 Is Broader than Just Encompassing Activities that Frustrate Settlements. Both former spouses got hit with attorney’s fees under Family Code section 2032 and 271, although husband was the “net” winner with $14,000 due after offsetting wife’s fee award. The amount was to be paid from wife’s sequestered escrow funds.
Two Second District Decisions Are Surveyed. Marriage of Kaufman, Case No. B196632 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 27, 2009) (unpublished) In this one, wife—after remarrying in a very public ceremony—was ordered to pay her former husband’s attorney’s fees of $15,000 under Family Code section 271 (out of a requested $42,000 in fees), payable in
Wife Only Receives $50,000 Despite Claiming To Have Spent Over $200,000, With Husband Claiming He Had Paid $169,000 In Past Attorney’s Fees and $20,000 In Expert Fees While Still Owing $116,000 In Attorney’s Fees. The next case involves an award illustrating how expensive and resource draining family law contests can become when they are
First District Affirms, While Fourth District Reverses. Under our category “Family Law,” we previously have explored Family Code section 271, which authorizes a family law judge to award fees to a family law litigant where the other side fails to promote settlement or fails to reduce the costs of litigation by being uncooperative. Two
Fourth District, Division 3 Also Has Some Comments on Systemic Problems Plaguing Family Law Courts in Orange County. The next case is not only interesting for the legal issues discussed, but equally poignant in the way its weaves in a discussion of problems plaguing family law dockets in Orange County (and likely other California
