Fourth District, Division 3 Uniformly Reverses One Award, But Splinters On Overturning Another Fee Award.
Here is a very interesting family law decision involving two fee awards, drawing both uniformity and conflict from our own Fourth District, Division 3. The case is Marriage of Reddi, Case No. G040864 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 30, 2009) (unpublished).
Presiding Justice Sills, drawing a dissent from Justice Aronson, reversed a fee award of $32,000 in accumulated attorney’s fees against a husband based on judicial appearance of bias by the family law judge. There was some indication that the lower court did not like husband’s offer to arbitrate all issues with wife in front of a group of five of wife’s friends, motivating the fee award against husband. “Judicial bias is a difficult subject for judges to write about. We like to think it doesn’t exist. But it does. Most judges, however, have the good sense to keep their thoughts to themselves and not say anything on the record which indicates bias toward a party. But when bias rears its ugly head as here, we have no alternative but to send the entire matter back to the trial court to be heard by another judge.” (Slip Opn., p. 8.) That is what happened, with the context of the lower court’s comments leading the majority to believe that a reversal and remand of the first fee order was required (with the dispute to be heard in front of a different judge). Justice Aronson dissented, arguing that the lower court was justified in showing exasperation with husband’s eleventh-hour unique arbitration proposal.
However, all three justices agreed that a $50,000 fees award under Family Code section 2032 needed to be overturned. The family law judge failed to grasp the “big picture” under section 2032, but awarded fees based on ad hominem matters fundamentally inconsistent with a “needs” based award. The lower court failed to follow the dictates of Family Code sections 2032 and 4320, in a 3-0 score, with the matter being remanded for reconsideration before a different judge.