Sixth District Sustains Section 2030 Need Award to Wife, While First District Affirms Section 271 Sanction Against Father.
In our category "Cases: Family Law Awards," we have examined several decisions on attorney’s fees awards in dissolution/custody proceedings. Two recent unpublished opinions affirmed awards made pursuant to two different Family Code provisions.
The first affirmance involved a family law judge’s decision to award Wife only $12,500 of her requested attorney’s fees of $24,000 based on Family Code section 2030. That section allows the family court to order payment of the other side’s legal fees based upon need and "any factors affecting the parties’ respective abilities to pay." (Family Code, § 2030(a)(2); see also § 2032 [award must be "just and reasonable under the relative circumstances of the respective parties"].) In Marriage of Willis, Case No. H031462 (6th Dist., Sept. 30, 2008) (unpublished), the Sixth District found no discretion was abused in rendering the fee award at issue, even though Wife apparently was miffed. The family law judge did consider the needs of the parties, Wife’s ability to be self-supporting, and the past support Husband had provided Wife. (Interestingly enough, the family law judge also had to divide 98 paintings that Wife had created during the marriage.)
The second award affirmed was one involving Family Code section 271. This section is more in the nature of a sanction, which is imposed where the conduct of a party or attorney frustrates settlement or does not promote the policy to reduce the cost of litigation through cooperative conduct by each side. (In re Marriage of Burgard, 72 Cal.App.4th 74, 82 (1999).) After finding that Father had taken positions without merit in proceedings involving visitation and child support issues, the family law judge awarded Wife $1,500 in sanctions under section 271 out of $2,500 requested by Wife. Because the record showed Father attempted to mediate issues outside of the court process and contested prior court orders without legal justification, the sanction was hardly an abuse of discretion, the First District, Division Three concluded in Marriage of Earnshaw and Nicholas, Case No. A119789 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 30, 2008) (unpublished).