Spousal Support Settlement Showed Ability to Pay By Wife; Wife’s Refusal to Sign Escrow Instructions Justified Sanctions.
In our category “Family Law,” we have many times explored the bases for fee awards under Family Code sections 2030/2032 and sanctions awards under Family Code section 271. Here is another one, which shows that awards will not be reversed unless the family law judge failed to consider the correct legal standards—if not, the deferential abuse of discretion standard will usually dictate an affirmance.
Marriage of Parris, Case No. G040900 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 21, 2009) (unpublished) involved a situation where wife was not happy because she was ordered to contribute $10,000 to husband’s fees under sections 2030/2032 and sanctioned her another $7,500 in fees under section 271.
She appealed, but lost under the abuse of discretion standard.
Justice O’Leary, on behalf of a 3-0 panel of the Fourth District, Division 3, affirmed both fees awards. As far as the 2030/2032 award was concerned, there was no problem because the record showed wife had brought ill advised child custody litigation, with wife having plenty of financial ability to pay the $10,000 once the hefty prior spousal support settlement was considered. (Get this as a basis of comparison: wife’s counsel declared he billed $341,058.35 in fees and costs, while husband’s counsel declared he billed $157,882.90 in fees and costs.) On the 271 sanctions, wife’s delay in refusing to sign escrow instructions justified the sanctions, which she had the ability to pay. Result: fee awards affirmed on appeal.