Some Evidence To Demonstrate Claim’s Potential Validity Required.
Two prior decisions, In re Marriage of Siller, 187 Cal.App.3d 36, 53 (1986) and In re Marriage of Bendetti, 214 Cal.App.4th 863, 871 (2013), allow pendente lite attorney’s fees to be imposed against third parties if statutory requirements for fee entitlement is shown, with the fee claimant needing to make a "non-specious" showing through presentation of evidence demonstrating the potential validity of his or her claims—akin to showing "objective speciousness" to support a fee award under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
However, the wife fee claimant in Marriage of Safaie and Khashayar, Case Nos. A139941/A140795 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 25, 2015) (unpublished)—who joined her former husband’s brother’s son to the dissolution proceedings—failed to do enough to justify the lower court’s award of $72,000 in pendente lite 2030 fees. Reason? She relied on unsworn, undated, and unauthenticated statements from her sisters about alleged asset misappropriation, evidence which did not even satisfy the minimal "speciousness" standard of Siller and Bendetti. Reversed.