Section 2030 Needs-Based Trial and Appellate Fees Denied To Husband. On May 7, 2022, we posted on the then unpublished decision of Marriage of Nakamoto and Hsu, Case No. G059102 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 4, 2022). It decided to deny some further section 2020 trial fees and appellate fees to husband for overlitigating […]
The Record “Unerringly” Demonstrated That Wife’s Refusal To Obey Court Orders Over A More Than Seven-Year Period Was Unreasonable And Unnecessarily Prolonged And Increased The Cost Of The Litigation. In Marriage of Butler, Case No. H049004 (6th Dist., May 9, 2022) (unpublished), husband and wife entered into a stipulation which was entered as a
Husband Incurred Attorney Fees Over And Above The Trial Court’s Previous Awards To Him Totaling $150,000 By Overlitigating The Case, And Failed To Provide The Trial Court With Reasonable Grounds For Appeal. Husband litigated a claim that his siblings and family-owned business entities owed him $4 million through the proceeding for dissolution of his
Family Code Section 7605 Allows For Needs-Based Fee And Costs Awards In Parentage Proceedings, But Can Apply To Separate Domestic Violence Prevention Act Proceedings Where They Involve The Same Or Similar Subject Matter. The mother of a 12-year-old boy, who has been involved in a contested parentage action with the boy’s father for roughly
Trial Court Had Ensured Against Financial Burden On Husband By Ordering Payment Of The Sanctions Through $200 Monthly Increments, And Its Statement Of Decision Made Clear That The Trial Court Had Considered The Behavior Of Both Parties. Family Code section 271(a) – the purpose of which is to promote settlement and encourage cooperation –
What Caught Our Eye On This One—Total Fees And Court Costs Were $7.5 Million Altogether! Marriage of Zucker, Case Nos. B281051 et al. (2d Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 3, 2022, modified Apr. 1, 2022) (partially published on invalidity of spousal support provision; fee discussion unpublished) involved a dissolution proceeding where the husband had a
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 Ex-wife, in Marriage of Ian W. and Margot H., Case No. A160486 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Mar. 21, 2022) (unpublished), was under the misapprehension that Family Code section 2030 fees were mandatory in any event.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
