Marriage of Csupo, Case No. B227959 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Mar. 27, 2012) (unpub).
In this one, the trial court terminated the husband’s obligation to continue paying attorney’s fees under a pendente lite order, a determination affirmed on appeal after husband paid $30,000 under the earlier $180,000 fee mandate, after wife apparently fired her prior attorneys, stipulated to a termination of the prior fee order, and drew the rancor of her prior counsel which were the ones to appeal the termination of the fee order. The problem here was that former attorneys had no vested right to pendente lite attorney’s fees. They relied on Family Code section 272(a)-(b), but that only dealt with enforcement of fee awards via execution procedures–something not in play given the fee termination order. Also, the lower court did have authority to reduce the award given that the firm substituted out of the case. (Schwartz v. Schwartz, 173 Cal.App.2d 455, 457 (1959).)
Lesso v. Andrzejewski, Case No. B225538 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Mar. 27, 2012) (unpub).
The second opinion involved a husband appealing an order imposing $300,000 in monetary sanctions against him for discovery abuse, failure to comply with family law mandatory disclosure requirements, and Family Code section 271 sanctions. Interestingly enough, husband sought to seize the day by saying wife’s appeal should be dismissed under the disentitlement doctrine (maybe archane, but one that says an appeal can be dismissed discretionarily if a party fails to comply with lower courts), with the appellate court refusing to exercise its discretion as husband wanted based on the circumstances of record. Husband’s main challenge on appeal was that a live evidentiary hearing–such as ones in the T.V. shows we all see– was mandated. Nope, because adjudication on written submissions is quite proper in these type of family law proceedings (In re Marriage of Falcone and Fyke, 203 Cal.App.4th 964 (2012)) and because husband also failed to comply with California Rules of Court requiring him to file a written statement specifying the nature/extent of the evidence proposed to be introduced as well as a reasonable time estimate for the hearing (Rule 3.1306(b)). Fee orders affirmed.