Ex-Wife Did Substantially Comply Before The 2030 Hearing, With Husband Stipulating To A Disparity.
In Marriage of Stewart, Case No. B339569 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 30, 2026) (unpublished), ex-wife sought two tranches of Family Code section 2030 “needs-based” fees because she was hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt to her divorce attorney for trial and appellate work. Ex-husband acknowledged the financial disparity between the two sides. However, the lower court denied the 2030 requests because ex-wife had failed to comply with rules governing income and expense documentation, even though she did deliver recent financial information by the second day of the 2030 evidentiary hearing.
The 2/1 DCA, in an opinion authored by Presiding Justice Rothschild (who sat as the supervising family law judge on the Los Angeles County Superior Court in the past), reversed and remanded to determine the amount of 2030 fees for ex-wife. The panel decided there was substantial compliance with providing required financial information, in tandem with the reality that there was a disparity in finances. The lower court’s failure to consider the “needs-based” factors also was telling, especially given that the financial information (although tardy) was provided.