Contract Provision Was Discretionary, And Ex-Husband Lacked Ability To Pay Under Family Code Provisions.
Ex-wife obviously was frustrated in Marriage of Rice, Case No. G053287 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 29, 2017) (unpublished) because she did seek attorney’s fees from ex-husband for child/spousal support issues but was denied them after multiple hearings before family law judges. The most recent fee denial was affirmed on appeal. She relied on a dissolution settlement provision providing that the court may award costs and fees relating to obligation issues; however, the 4/3 DCA panel observed the word “may” is permissive, quoting from a prior decision indicating that this word means “you can do if you want, but you aren’t being forced to.” (Woolls v. Superior Court, 127 Cal.App.4th 197, 208 (2005).) She also asked for awards of fees under Family Code section 3557 (fee shifting in child support disputes) and section 271 (fees as sanctions for not trying to resolve the dissolution case), but the trial judge’s determination that ex-husband could not pay—a mandatory factor for consideration under both provisions—was no abuse of discretion. Justice Moore was the author of this decision.