Halverson v. Seymour, Case No H032446 (6th Dist. June 22, 2010) (unpublished)—an affirmance
In this one, husband appealed a $10,000 sanctions award of fees to wife under Family Code section 271. C’mon, is what the appellate court basically said on this one. There was evidence showing husband purchased a daycare facility and expensive jewelry for his fiancée. Coupled with husband’s failure to supply an adequate record of his attorney expenses on appeal, the abuse of discretion standard was not surmounted in this one.
Marriage of Moody, Case No. A124962 (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 24, 2010) (unpublished)—reversal and remand as to reasonableness of the fee award
Husband did prevail in a property allocation dispute under a marital settlement agreement awarding post-settlement fees to the prevailing party, with wife losing merits challenges to the fee award given that parties to a martial settlement may contractually agree to a fee clause independent of the fee provisions in the Family Code. (In re Marriage of Sherman, 162 Cal.App.3d 1132, 1140 (1984); Turner v. Schultz, 175 Cal.App.4th 974, 980 (2009).) However, a reversal was required as far as the amount of $93,285.08 in awarded fees and costs to husband. The main problem was that husband’s attorneys never submitted any information so that the hourly rate or time actually spent on the case could be determined. Beyond that, the expert fees—if awarded under the routine costs statutes—may not have been well supported because they did not involve expenses associated with a court-ordered expert. The case was remanded for a new hearing regarding fees and costs.