“Big” Picture Was Considered By Family Judge, Especially Where Husband Had Substantial Assets And Outspent Wife By Almost Double In Dissolution Fees.
As we predicted in our post of March 21, 2009, family law practitioners would use “big” picture language from Alan S. v. Superior Court, 172 Cal.App.4th 238 (2009) in arguing that the playing field was unfairly tilted in “needs” based fee awards under Family Code sections 2032/4320. Our prediction has come true in numerous cases, with the next case being the most recent one in the queue.
Husband, despite having substantial assets and spending almost double in fees what wife spent in the dissolution proceeding, argued on appeal in Marriage of Hagaman, Case No. B228238 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Jan. 18, 2012) (unpublished) that the $850,000 pendente lite fee award to wife ignored the “big picture” and tried to level the playing field too much.
Didn’t work. She had a lot less assets, a lot less cash flow, and had spent much less on attorney’s fees, albeit had spent a lot. (You can’t believe it, but here are the facts from the unpublished opinion: in April 2010, wife spent $611,820 and husband spent $1,004,766; and, in August 2010, wife spent $807,591 and husband spent $1,443,208. Wow!) Nothing demonstrated a myopic approach by the lower court, especially since it reserved wife’s request for an additional $576,400 for trial. Ouch — more fees to come, potentially.
BLOG TIDBIT: According to an Internet article in 2002, Earl Hagaman was the owner of Scenic Circle Hotels, a large New Zealand hotel chain. The article estimated his personal worth at $75 million.
Kiwi. Apteryx Australis. 1835. Elizabeth Gould, illustrator.