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 Johns v. Cummings, Case No. B313964 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Feb. 17, 2023) (unpublished) involved the aftermath of a romantic relationship between Thomas Cummings, a recording artist, and Whitney Johns, a fitness model/personal trainer, who both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.
$25,000 Sanctions Order Was Not Subject To Review. In Marriage of Freeman, Case No. B311411 (2d Dist., Div. 6 Dec. 6, 2022) (unpublished; opinion after rehearing), ex-wife was peeved she was assessed with Family Code section 2071 sanctions to the tune of $25,000. However, her challenges could not be entertained because she did not
Statutory Provision Allows For These Awards Where An Ex-Spouse/Ex-Partner Fails To Satisfy His/Her Disclosure Violations In A Dissolution Proceeding. Family Code section 2107(c) allows a family law judge to award fees, costs, and sanctions for disclosure violations during a dissolution proceeding, with certain disclosure obligations triggered by the service of the divorce action. In
$58,400 In Sanctions Were Imposed. In In re Marriage of Blake & Langer, Case No. B311966 (2d Dist., Div. 4 Nov. 10, 2022) (published), husband filed a joinder complaint against wife’s brother and wife’s father in wife’s dissolution action. Wife’s brother filed a frivolous motion to disqualify husband’s attorneys. Husband filed a Family Code
An Unsworn Statement Made By Husband’s Counsel, As To His Hourly Rate And Time Spent Working On The Case, Did Not Support The Trial Court’s Lodestar Calculation. In Marriage of Halamandaris, Case No. E076933 (4th Dist., Div. 2 October 10, 2022) (unpublished), husband defeated wife’s attempt to obtain a restraining order under the Domestic
271 Fees Of $400,000 And 2030 Fees Of $60,000 Affirmed On Appeal. Ex-husband in Marriage of Regalbuto, Case Nos. B310897/B310917 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 16, 2022) (unpublished) got a “double whammy” in a consolidated domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) trial against two ex-wives. He lost the trial and, during the way and afterwards,
Failure To Rule Was Prejudicial, Leading To A Reversal. Marriage of Knox, Case No. F081092 (5th Dist. Sept. 9, 2022) (published) is a blockbuster decision where a lower court’s failure to promptly rule on a self-represented ex-wife’s request for pendente lite Family Code section 2030 led to reversal on reserved issues when she bungled
Trial Transcript Records Are Key In This Area. In Marriage of Jensen, Case No. H04948 (6th Dist. Aug. 17, 2022) (unpublished), we picked up on these takeaways: (1) Family Code section 271 sanctions need to be timely requested during family law proceedings; and (2) Family Code section 2030 “needs” based awards need to comply
