Cases: Family Law

Marriage of Hearn, Case No. A162932 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 10, 2023) (published)–$20,000 needs-based fee award to ex-wife under section 2030 was affirmed for two principal reasons:  (1) although unemployed now, ex-husband—an attorney—had superior future earning capacity than ex-wife had; and (2) ex-husband had vigorously represented himself in the dissolution case, while wife had […]

Appellate Court Was Bothered By Inconsistent Reasoning And Use Of Selective Evidence While Finding Appellant’s Proof Was Not Credible In Entirety.             In Swan v. Hatchett, Case Nos. A163825 et al. (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 29, 2023) (published), the lower court refused to consider ex-husband’s evidence as uncredible in child support modification and Family

Wife Denied 2030/271 Sanction Requests—The Dissolution Battle May Be Over!             In Marriage of Shepherd, Case No. B322621 (2d Dist., Div. 3 May 4, 2023) (unpublished), two decades after a dissolution action was filed, husband and wife seemingly reached a marital settlement agreement (MSA) resolving all issues, read into the record in a court proceeding. 

The Reduction Was Tethered To The Misconduct At Issue.             In Marriage of Dolkhani & Izadpanahi, Case No. B317763 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Mar. 8, 2023) (unpublished), the lower court awarded Family Code section 271 sanctions (attorney’s fees) of $11,605 based on a dissolution litigant’s failure to cooperate in the preparation of a proposed judgment

Reversal of Spousal Support Order Parlayed Into Reversal Of Fees Order.             In Kuo v. Liu, Case No. A164928 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 21, 2023) (unpublished), ex-husband was hit with a $13,000 monthly permanent spousal support payments and a $175,000 fees award to ex-wife under the needs-based Family Code provisions and Family Code section

Ex-Male Significant Other Had Ability To Pay, But Lower Court Did Not Award Full Fee Request Of $181,042.             Johns v. Cummings, Case No. B313964 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 17, 2023) (unpublished) involved the aftermath of a romantic relationship between Thomas Cummings, a recording artist, and Whitney Johns, a fitness model/personal trainer, who both

Award Could Not Lie Against Litigant’s Attorney, And Simply Challenging Judge For Bias Does Not Justify 271 Sanctions.             In Featherstone v. Martinez, Case No. B316280 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 21, 2022) (published), mother and her attorney were ordered to pay $10,000 each in Family Code section 271 sua sponte sanctions ordered by a

$73,000 Was The 2030 Fees Award.             As we wind down on another year (can you believe it), we have to say that family law is a nuanced area of the law and seems to be driven by factual circumstances and the equities in a lot of cases we have posted on over the years.