The Trial Court Was Required To Issue An Award Based On Whether Mandatory Findings Demonstrated Disparity In Access To Funds And Ability To Pay.
In Marriage of Saedi v. Kadivar, Case No. B347642 (2d Dist., Div. 2 April 14, 2026) (unpublished), Visitation-seeking Grandmother appealed the trial court’s denial of her request for Family Code section 2030 attorney’s fees and costs. Focusing her appeal on the basis for the trial court’s denial, Grandmother argued that the trial court abused its discretion by basing its decision on its finding that Grandmother had misused her grandchildren’s 529 accounts and did not have a significant relationship with them. The 2/2 DCA agreed and remanded the case back to the trial court for mandatory findings under section 2030.
The 2004 and 2010 amendments to section 2030 had greatly reduced the trial court’s broad discretion in determining needs-based fees requests. Under section 2030, the trial court is required to make findings on three questions – whether an award of fees and costs is appropriate, whether there is a disparity in access to fund and ability to pay, and whether on party is able to pay for the legal representation of both parties. Section 2030(a)(2) requires the trial court to issue an award of fees and costs if the mandatory findings demonstrate disparity and access and ability to pay. While section 2030 requires the fees awards to be “appropriate,” it does not indicate that equitable factors can be considered. Rather, the term “appropriate” refers to factors relating to disparity in access to funds and ability to pay. Here, Grandmother lives with family, has little to no assets, is retired and lives off of her social security income and public assistance – totaling about $1,662 a month. Father to her grandchildren, however, has significant assets including real estate, and is a surgeon who earns roughly $800,000 per year.