$21,936 Reallocation of Fees for Temporary Judge Was Error, Because Jurisdiction Was Lacking.
The next case is a potential real pitfall for family law practitioners. It clearly counsels lawyers to make sure that certain fee/costs awards are ordered before a final judgment is entered or preserved pursuant to a reservation of jurisdiction.
In Marriage of Carrino, Case No. A124724 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 30, 2010) (unpublished), a trial court reallocated certain private fees in a way requiring wife to pay her former husband’s delinquency of $21,93 in fees owed to a private judge pursuant to a stipulation between the parties. However, in line with prevailing law, the stipulation provided that any unpaid sums to the private judge had to be included “in the judgment rendered in this proceeding.” The problem is that the private judge entered an earlier judgment that did not include the unpaid fees or order a reallocation.
The wife appealed from the lower court’s reallocation, winning on a jurisdictional point. The trap for the unwary was that future attorney’s fees orders for legal services rendered prior to the final judgment cannot be entered after the judgment is entered absent a reservation of jurisdiction. (In re Marriage of Mulhern, 29 Cal.App.3d 988, 994 (1973); Hogoboom & King, Cal. Prac. Guide: Family Law (The Rutter Group 2008) ¶ 14.9, p. 14-3.) Here, the private judge’s final judgment had been entered, meaning the trial court lacked authority to require wife to pay husband’s portion of the fees incurred prior to entry of judgment. (Incidentally, the parties did agree the lower court had authority to reallocate fees incurred after entry of judgment, but this wasn’t involved in the case.)
On the subject of traps and pitfalls, see Monty Python and the Holy Grail — Three Questions.