Ex-Husband Did Have Ability To Pay, With The Lower Court Structuring The Fee Recovery To Ameliorate Hardship. Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth, on behalf of a 3-0 panel, authored Marriage of Lou and Ma, Case No. G061015 et al. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 6, 2023) (unpublished). Ex-husband in a dissolution case appealed an award
Because Ex-Husband Did Timely Pay An Earlier Discovery Sanctions, 271 Sanctions Order Had To Be Revisited Based On Lower Court Error On This Discrete Issue. Family Code section 271 sanctions can be steep. This is a statutory provision that allows considerable leeway to a lower court to impose sanctions in a dissolution proceeding against
Justice Wiley, In Concurring, Shows Why This Is A Necessary Result Given Public Discontent About The Costs Of Modern Litigation. I guess one could say that Marriage of Andrew and Rangell, Case No. B313786 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Sept. 28, 2023) (published) is simply an affirmance, primarily, of Family Code section 271 sanctions award
However, Ex-Wife’s Appeal From The Final Judgment Was Timely Because the Interim Order Denying Fees Was Not A Separately Appealable Order. The main lesson from Marriage of Davis, Case No. D080980 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 18, 2023) (unpublished) is a simple one: if you are seeking fees, make sure you have a fee
MSA Was Not Preemptive In Nature. Ex-wife and ex-husband in Mathur v. Mathur, Case No. H050018 (6th Dist. Aug. 25, 2023) (unpublished) were litigating the validity of a martial settlement agreement (MSA) with a provision stating that each side would bear her/his own attorney’s fees. The lower court still awarded ex-wife $61,455 in need-based
Ex-Husband Had To Spend $208,000 To Prepare For And Engage In Trial. Marriage of Prunchunas, Case Nos. B319493 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 2 Aug. 21, 2023) (unpublished) is a situation where a lower court imposed $100,000 in Family Code section 271 sanctions against ex-wife where she rejected four favorable settlement offers by ex-husband,
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
CCP § 2023.030 Allowed For The Award, With Willful Discovery Defiance Found By The Lower Court. A party’s failure to comply with discovery orders can have harsh consequences: monetary sanctions; issue sanctions; and sometimes even dismissal or directives to enter a default judgment. Ex-husband found that out in Marriage of Foulk, Case No. C094350
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.
