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 Marriage of Kaufman, Case No. B196632 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 27, 2009) (unpublished) In this one, wife—after remarrying in a very public ceremony—was ordered to pay her former husband’s attorney’s fees of $15,000 under Family Code section 271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
Second District, Division 3 Sustains Denial of Fees under Family Code section 6344(a). The next case reinforces the notion that if you are going to appeal, make sure you develop an adequate record on review—especially so when a fee entitlement statute is permissive and any fee ruling is scrutinized under the abuse of
Sixth District Affirms Denial of Wife’s Request for Fees Based on “Need.” In Falcone v. Fyke, Case Nos. H031458 & H031792 (6th Dist. Mar. 5, 2009) (unpublished), the family law judge denied wife’s request for an award of attorney’s fees to equalize the family dispute playing field because wife did not timely file
Family Code Section 6344 Authorizes the Award; Trial Court Did Not Err In Failing to Allocate the Award Between Costs and Fees. Stephens v. Lane, Case No. H032719 (6th Dist. Feb. 26, 2009) (unpublished) involved a wife who obtained an award for $15,000 in attorney’s fees and costs associated with winning a restraining order
Fourth District, Divisions Three and One Affirm Fee Awards Under Family Code sections 2030 and 2032. In our category “Family Law Awards,” we have frequently seen the courts awarding attorney’s fees to one spouse in family court proceedings based on Family Code sections 2030 and 2032. The purpose of these statutory provisions is to
Fifth District Vacates $6,000 in Sanctions Against Wife. The beginning sentences of In re Marriage of Grady and Britten, Case No. F054668 (5th Dist. Feb. 17, 2009) (unpublished) are ominous in tone: “Arbitration typically is viewed as a relatively fast, inexpensive way to resolve disputes. This view assumes the existence of a clear and
