Second District, Division 8 Sustains Family Law Commissioner Across the Board.
Well, ex-husband in the next one—who lost an attempt to have custody of his children shifted from his ex-wife—was hit with an order directing him to pay past arrearages to wife for attorney’s fees awards as well as hit with an additional award of his choosing for losing the parental alienation battle: either $6,000 if wife has to file an additional declaration in support of the fee award or $3,250 on or before a date certain. Apparently ruffled by the rulings, ex-husband sought review, apparently not choosing to pay the lesser $3,250 option.
Bad idea. He lost across the board on appeal.
In Marriage of Torres, Case No. B214980 (2d Dist., Div. 8 July 13, 2010) (unpublished), ex-husband initially tried to argue that the family law commissioner could not issue such an arrearage order (pay $250 per month by wage assignment until done), an argument easily dismissed given the broad discretion given to family judges in fashioning relief. Then, ex-husband suggested that the attorney’s fees arrearage payoff was akin to a supplemental child support order which is forbidden under Boutte v. Nears, 50 Cal.App.4th 162, 165-166 (1996). Problem here was that this was no child support award. Finally, the additional $6,000/$3,250 option award—which was not really specified with particularity—was construed as a Family Code section 271 sanctions order. (In re Marriage of Lucio, 161 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1082 (2008) [court may select the more reasonable interpretation where the award is not specified as needs-based under Family Code section 2030 or as sanctions based under Family Code section 271].) The record certainly supported a sanctions award; after all, the family law commissioner did say that ex-husband’s parental alienation attempt was “far-fetched” (enough said). Fees affirmed.
BLOG UNDERVIEW #1: We learn something everyday. Apparently, under the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCA), 11 U.S.C. § 523(a), attorney’s fees incurred by a spouse in a dissolution proceeding are generally not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).
BLOG UNDERVIEW #2: Winning attorney on appeal was Marjorie G. Fuller, a local-based Orange County attorney who is a wiz on these type of issues.