Family Law Duo: 271 Sanctions Award Of $5,000 Affirmed, While 2030/2032 Award Of $20,000 In Attorney’s Fees Reversed For Failure to Consider All The Circumstantial Factors

 

Here we go–a family law attorney’s fees two-fer.

Bondarenko v. Buehrle, Case No. A128933 (1st Dist., Div. 2 Apr. 27, 2011) (Unpublished).

     This one involves an affirmance of a $5,000 Family Code section 271 sanctions award against former boyfriend/father in an acrimonious visitation dispute with former girlfriend/mother of their chid Beau. The main dispute involved father’s claims that child had been bitten by a young Rottweiler Sieg, who resided with mother and her new boyfriend. (Has all the makings of a soap opera, doesn’t it?) Needless to say, the facts are soap operish, with the family law judge eventually concluding that father had not attempted to resolve things and presenting obstacles to mother’s visitation with her son, hence the reason for the $5,000 award.

Rottweiler - Wikipedia

     Father could not beat the abuse of discretion review standard applicable to the fee award. The lower court was not obligated to identify each and every objectionable email sent by father, with distillation of the conduct pattern being enough. Mother’s attorney did give email notice of the sanctions request, which satisified due process concerns. On the ability to pay issue, father did not submit a current income and expense declaration in opposiiton to the fee request, a “no no” in this area. Award affirmed.

Marriage of Ellis, Case No. G043658 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 27, 2011) (Unpublished).

     This case was decided by our local Santa Ana appellate court in a 3-0 decision authored by Justice Fybel.

      In a nutshell, ex-wife was awarded $20,000 in pendente lite attorney’s fees and $5,000 in accountant fees pursuant to Family Code sections 2030/2032 (the needs-based family law fee statutes). Although inferred findings were tempting for the appellate court to make, it refused to do so because the lower court admitted on the record that it did not consider any of the “totality of circumstances” factors required under Family Code section 4320 as a predicate to the 2030/2032 award. This alone justified a reversal and remand to properly reconsider mother’s fee request.

     Blog Bonus:  Tammy Wynette sings D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Scroll to Top