2030 Fee Orders Are Guided By An Abuse Of Discretion Standard With Respect To The Parties’ Ability To Pay. Ex-wife, in Marriage of Ian W. and Margot H., Case No. A160486 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 21, 2022) (unpublished), was under the misapprehension that Family Code section 2030 fees were mandatory in any event. […]
Due Process Was Provided, And Ability To Pay Did Not Need To Be Considered. In Khuwaja v. Ladak, Case No. B306355 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Mar. 15, 2022) (unpublished), a litigant was hit with a $33,500 fee award under Family Code section 6344(a), which allows a discretionary award of fees and costs to a
Failure To Make Required Findings Under Family Code Section 2030 Requires Reversal Only Where A Reasonable Probability Exists That A More Favorable Result To The Appealing Party Would Have Been Reached If Explicit Findings Were Made In Marriage of Callas, Case No. C093353 (3rd Dist., March 8, 2022) (unpublished), husband who had been
Exceptions To The General Rule That A Court May Consider Only The Grounds For Relief Specified In A Notice Of Motion, Or Request For Order, Applied In This Case. In Marriage of Torres, Case No. D078469 (4th Dist., Div. 1 February 25, 2022) (unpublished), wife appealed the trial court’s order awarding husband $28,000 in
“Just For Right Now” Award Meant Wife Could Ask For More Down The Road, And Wife Had Burden Of Demonstrating She Was Prejudiced By Trial Court’s Failure To Make Express Findings. In Marriage of Davda and Tejeda, Case No. B310091 (2d Dist., Div. 6 February 23, 2022) (unpublished), Wife appealed trial court’s order awarding
Case Remanded On Ex-Wife’s Request For $337,236 In Fees For DVPA Proceeding. Where a litigant is involved with classic contractual interpretation of a fees clause without any conflicting extrinsic evidence, the result can be a de novo review shocker as revealed in Marriage of Fischer, Case No. A160179 (1st Dist., Div. 2 February 8,
Husband’s Conclusory Assertions Of Trial Court Error With No Record On Appeal, No Supporting Argument Nor Legal Authority, And His Failure To Have Followed Statutory Procedure In The Lower Court Doomed His Appeal. In Marriage of Joe and Lee, Case No. H047392 (6th Dist., January 7, 2022) (unpublished), the trial court awarded wife $2,520
Sanctions and Vexatious Litigant Issues Not Foreclosed By A Settlement Or Dismissal Via Settlement/Judgment. In Marriage of Patel and Bhatia, Case No. B307926 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 14, 2021) (unpublished), an ex-husband was sanctioned for $5,000 under Family Code section 271 [designed to penalize litigants not trying to settle or multiplying proceedings in
Lower Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion In Appointing A Receiver To Help Enforce Spousal And Child Support Issues. Any fans of HGTV likely know of Catherine (Cat) Cora, a well-known celebrity chef. In 2017, her marriage to Jennifer Cora was dissolved, with the lower court ordering Cat to pay $8,118 in monthly child
Section 6334(a) Fees Are Discretionary Even If Respondent Was A Prevailing Party. In Bennett v. Rivers, Case No. B301211 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 6, 2021) (unpublished), a respondent did prevail (although the lower court technically erred in concluding otherwise) when petitioner dismissed a domestic violence restraining order petition after she obtained a criminal
