Cases: Family Law

Family Law: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Court’s Award Of One-Half Of Wife’s Requested Needs-Based Attorney Fees, And Wife Failed To Show Prejudice Regarding The Trial Court’s Failure To Make Express Findings Under § 2030

Cases: Family Law

“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             In Marriage of Davda and Tejeda, Case No. B310091 (2d Dist., Div. 6 February 23, 2022) (unpublished), Wife appealed trial court’s order awarding […]

Family Law, Fee Clause Interpretation: Fee Clauses In Dissolution Proceeding Did Not Preclude Ex-Wife’s Recovery Of Fees In Subsequent Domestic Violence Prevention Act Proceeding

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation

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,

Family Law, Sanctions: Sixth District Affirms Trial Court’s Imposition Of $2,520 In Section 271 Sanctions Against Husband And Denial Of Husband’s Request For $100 Million In Sanctions Against Wife And Her Attorney

Cases: Family Law, Cases: Sanctions

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             In Marriage of Joe and Lee, Case No. H047392 (6th Dist., January 7, 2022) (unpublished), the trial court awarded wife $2,520

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             In Marriage of Patel and Bhatia, Case No. B307926 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 14, 2021) (unpublished), an ex-husband was sanctioned for $5,000 under Family Code section 271 [designed to penalize litigants not trying to settle or multiplying proceedings in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

Scroll to Top