Abuse of Discretion Standard Drove Result Here.
In Marriage of Nigro, Case No. G046170 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 3, 2013) (unpublished), ex-wife likely was bewildered when she was hit with $8,524.88 in Family Code section 271 sanctions and then denied any Family Code section 2030 needs-based fees for hiring an assistant attorney to help her even though she was a certified family law specialist.
Her appeals of the two orders were unsuccessful, based on the determinative abuse of discretion standard applying to the two orders.
With respect to the 271 sanctions, the record did show that she tried to sabotage an earlier court-ordered diagnostic testing of her daughter suffering from a hyper-activity disorder. So, the sanctions award –payable in $300 monthly installments– was not erroneous.
The needs-based order denying fees to ex-wife was also sustained. Although each side probably could afford the fees (wife made $130-150,000 per year versus $97,200-276,000 per year for husband), the lower court did not abuse its discretion in finding that ex-wife was an accomplished family law attorney specialist, such that her request for assistance counsel was not a necessity–rejecting application of contractual fee cases where a contrary result was reached based on different circumstances.
Presiding Justice O’Leary authored the 3-0 panel decision from our local appellate court.