She Was Hit With Other Need-Based Fees Along the Way.
“In a scenario all too familiar to bench officers who have dealt with family law matters, the former spouses who are parties here have been involved in ongoing litigation which now exceeds the duration of their marriage. This case is before us for the fifth time.”
Marriage of Moody, Case No. A130895 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 30, 2011) (unpublished) followed on the heels of prior proceedings in which wife had to pay husband need-based fees/costs of $10,000, $15,000, and $26,650 (the last one being appellate costs for the third appeal). The third time around at the trial level, wife was ordered to pay husband a total of $93,285.08 in fees/costs based on a prevailing party clause in a settlement/judgment, but that one was reversed based on an inadequate evidentiary record to establish the reasonableness of the requested fees. Next time around, husband’s counsel did submit detailed substantiation, and wife filed no response. The lower court ultimately awarded another $80,195.59 in fees to husband under Civil Code section 1717.
This fee award was affirmed. Wife could not overcome the abuse of discretion standard, given that counsel did supply evidence on hourly rates and substantiation of services rendered on remand from the prior appeal–establishing the reasonableness of husband’s fee request.