The Court of Appeals Finds Trial Court’s Order “Puzzling” Husband and wife’s marriage dissolved in 1992. In 2009, the now ex-husband filed an OSC to modify or terminate his spousal support obligation, because he planned to retire. The trial court denied the OSC, while ordering the 66-year old ex-wife to make efforts to become […]
Discretion Only Goes So Far, Says Our Local Appellate Court Presiding Justice Sills, on behalf of a 3-0 panel of our local appellate court, determined in La Cuesta v. Benham, Case No. G043788 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 29, 2011) (certified for publication) that discretion can only go so far when a litigant
Substantial Evidence Showed That Insurer Did Not Agree to Defend, So No Trigger Of Fee Arbitration Rights. In The Housing Group v. PMA Capital Ins. Co., Case No. A127581 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 25, 2011) (certified for publication), insurer defendant was sued by plaintiffs for alleged failures and refusals to defend plaintiffs
Abuse of Discretion of Standard Will Yield Where Record Shows What Lower Court Really Did. Although we doubt that it will make that much difference on remand, Kaye v. Van Putten, Case Nos. F058513/F059269 (5th Dist. Mar. 21, 2011) (unpublished) demonstrates that a fee award stands to be reversed and remanded where a lower
Second District, Division 2 Sustains Substantial Award. In Chapman v. Sullivan Motor Cars, LLC, Case Nos. B222542/B224885 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Feb. 9, 2011) (unpublished), plaintiff had a demurrer sustained without leave to his first amended complaint, with the lower court also adopting a referee’s decision to award attorney’s fees against plaintiff to the
Abuse of Discretion Standard Did Not Prevent Reversal When Record Showed Errors, According to Sixth District. In an interesting contrast to the way the abuse of discretion standard was deferentially applied in our contemporaneous post in Murrell v. Rolling Hills Community Association, the Sixth District found that the trial court abused its discretion in
Second District, Division 1 Finds No Abuse of Discretion in Various Fee Awards. It is amazing how ocean views, privacy, and trees all seem to be in the mix of many neighbor/homeowner association disputes. The next one is no exception, producing substantial cross-fee awards under Civil Code section 1354 that probably only made the
$509,231 Scaled Back By Trial Court, But Sustained On Appeal. Here is an interesting substantial fee award. Half of what plaintiff requested, but way above the $95,000 Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer eventually accepted in the case on the eve of trial. Goes to show that fees do not have to be
Fourth District, Division 3 Affirms Sizable Extraordinary Fee Award Under Abuse of Discretion Standard. Acting Presiding Justice O’Leary, in the 3-0 unpublished decision in Estate of Fernandez, Case No. G041272 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 7, 2010) (unpublished), has a nice discussion of the difference between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” compensation in the probate area
Fourth District, Division 3 Affirmance Based on Lack of Record on Challenges. Justice Ikola, in a 3-0 panel decision in Aziz v. Mason-Arnold, Case No. G042470 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Nov. 29, 2010) (unpublished), affirmed a $2,600 attorney’s fees award and costs to defendant in a post-judgment harassment TRO dispute. Plaintiff challenged the post-judgment
