Second District, Division 7 Has Nice Survey of Family Code Sections 2030 and 271 Fee Awards in Unpublished Opinion.
Family law proceedings, including fee and sanctions hearings, invoke the full range of emotions. The awards, too, can be substantial, depending on the wealth of the parties involved. The next case sustained substantial fee awards in favor of wife.
In Marriage of Schneider, Case No. B208841 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 14, 2009) (unpublished), wife obtained a Family Code section 2030 “needs” award of $225,000 and a Family Code section 271 “sanctions” award of $10,000 against former husband, arising from both a backdrop of California proceedings and a Colorado lawsuit in which wife was found by a jury to have improperly taken $40,000 worth of property (but awarding husband nothing because the jury found husband was 70% at fault and Colorado law denies recovery to a party who had been adjudged more than 50% at fault). Husband appealed, but lost under the abuse of discretion standard.
After a nice discussion of the Family Code provisions authorizing fee awards (see our category “Family Law” for prior cases discussing sections 2030 and 271), the Court of Appeal found no error in the fee awards. With respect of the 2030 award, it was 75% of the requested amount (after excluding substantial fees for the Colorado matter and fees from a prior firm whose work was found to be of no tangible benefit). The 271 sanctions award was justified because husband’s pursuit of the Colorado action during the pendency of a California order to show cause was too much gamesmanship, even for the appellate panel.
BLOG OBSERVATION—Here is something that the co-contributors were not aware of. An appeal can be dismissed if one of the parties has been found in contempt or has found to be noncompliant with trial court orders. (See, e.g., MacPherson v. MacPherson, 13 Cal.2d 271, 277 (1939); TMS, Inc. v. Aihara, 71 Cal.App.4th 377, 379 (1999).) No formal judgment of contempt is a prerequisite to an appellate court’s ability to exercise its discretionary power to dismiss in this context. We didn’t know this, but makes sense. We pass it on to our readers and fellow practitioners.