Cases: Family Law

Family Law: Stipulated Judgment Not Mentioning Pending Sanctions Issues Did Not Deprive Family Law Judge Of Ability To Issue Family Code Section 271 Sanctions

Cases: Family Law

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             In Marriage of Patel and Bhatia, Case No. B307926 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 14, 2021) (unpublished), an ex-husband was sanctioned for $5,000 under Family Code section 271 [designed to penalize litigants not trying to settle or multiplying proceedings in […]

Family Law: Lower Court Properly Denied Respondent Prevailing Party Attorney’s Fees Under Family Code Section 6344(a) Because Petitioner Obtained Relief In A Separate Criminal Case

Cases: Family Law

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             In Bennett v. Rivers, Case No. B301211 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Oct. 6, 2021) (unpublished), a respondent did prevail (although the lower court technically erred in concluding otherwise) when petitioner dismissed a domestic violence restraining order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

Appealability, Deadlines, Family Law: Ex-Husband’s Appeals Of Postjudgment Fee Orders Doomed By Untimeliness Of Appeal On One Order And Lack of Merit On The Other Two.

Cases: Appealability, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Family Law

Pay Attention to Appellate Deadlines, If You Want To Preserve Challenges.             In Marriage of Mhanna and Hage, Case Nos. H045078 et al. (6th Dist. Sept. 24, 2021) (unpublished), ex-husband challenged three attorney fees orders: (1) a first order awarding fees to ex-wife under Family Code section 271 and 2030 to the tune of $80,000;

Family Law, Fee Clause Interpretation: Wife Properly Allowed Section 217 Sanctions Against Husband For Divorce Decree Enforcement Purposes

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

However, Lower Court Properly Denied Her Fees On Husband’s Prior Efforts To Set Aside The Martial Settlement Agreement.             In Marriage of Mirza, Case Nos. G057613 et seq. (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 1, 2021) (unpublished), husband and wife entered into a marital settlement agreement and divorce decree based upon the agreement.  Husband then attempted

Family Law: Section 271 Sanction Of $85,000 Reversed And Remanded For Determination Of Whether Imposition Of Sanction Would Constitute An Unreasonable Financial Burden

Cases: Family Law

Before Issuing Sanctions Under Family Code § 271, A Trial Court Is Required To Consider The Parties’ Incomes, Assets And Liabilities, And Cannot Impose Sanctions That Constitute An Unreasonable Financial Burden On The Sanctioned Party.             In Marriage of Luu and Avritch, Case No. A161935 (1st Dist., Div. 1 June 29, 2021) (unpublished), the trial

Family Law: Increase Of Monthly Child Support From $989 To $10,658 And $20,000 Attorney Fees Award To Wife Reversed On Appeal

Cases: Family Law

Trial Court Adopted Wife’s DissoMaster Report To Calculate Awards, But It Reflected Wife’s Income At A Level Contradicted By Attachments To Her Incomplete Income And Expense Declaration And Lacked Supporting Documentation.             In Marriage of Behrend, Case No. B305380 (2d Dist., Div. 3 June 22, 2021) (unpublished), the trial court granted wife’s request for a

Family Law, Probate, Sanctions: Lower Court Properly Sanctioned Putative Spouse’s Attorney $3,617.50 Under CCP § 128.7 For Filing A Frivolous Putative Spouse Petition

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Probate, Cases: Sanctions

Putative Spouse Failed To Show She Had A Legal Marriage With The Respondent Under Indian Law, Based On A Res Judicata Finding In A Prior Conservatorship Petition Proceeding.             The problem for putative spouse and her attorney in Nijjar v. Nijjar, Case No. F078265 (5th Dist. June 10, 2021) (unpublished) is that they earlier lost

Family Law: $4,500 Attorney’s Fees Award Reversed, Without Prejudice For Renewal, Based On Claiming On A Different Section Than Section 271

Cases: Family Law

Litigant Will Get Another Shot At It.             In In re Marriage of Orr and Traina, Case No. H046090 (6th Dist. June 1, 2021) (unpublished), a litigant won a $4,500 attorney’s fees award as a sanction under Family Code section 271 against the other side.  That was reversed and remanded, without prejudice, because litigant only

Family Law, Probate: Husband Of Spendthrift Trust’s Beneficiary, Successfully Joining Trustee To Dissolution Proceeding, Potentially Entitled To Needs-Based Fees Even If No Bad Faith Demonstrated Against Trustee

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Probate

Collision Between Family Law And Probate Principles Came Out In Favor Of Section 2030.             In Marriage of Wendt and Pullen, Case No. C084083 (3d Dist. Apr. 28, 2021) (published), the Third District encountered the intersection of Family Code section 2030’s need-based fees award statute with Probate Code/spendthrift provisions relating to trust administration practices (including

Scroll to Top