MSA Was Not Preemptive In Nature.
Ex-wife and ex-husband in Mathur v. Mathur, Case No. H050018 (6th Dist. Aug. 25, 2023) (unpublished) were litigating the validity of a martial settlement agreement (MSA) with a provision stating that each side would bear her/his own attorney’s fees. The lower court still awarded ex-wife $61,455 in need-based fees under Family Code section 2030 after factually finding a disparity in access to resources and ability to pay by ex-wife. Ex-husband’s challenge on appeal was that the MSA was preemptive in nature as far as awarding further fees.
The Sixth District disagreed, affirming the fee award to ex-wife. It cited case law establishing a court can make a section 2030 fee award when a property agreement is challenged. (Locke-Paddon v. Locke- Paddon, 194 Cal. 73, 79-81 (1924); Nacht v. Nacht, 167 Cal.App.2d 254, 268 (1959); Spreckels v. Spreckels, 111 Cal.App.2d 529, 532 (1952).) Although the appellate panel acknowledged that ex-husband had some support for his position in reasoning found in In re Marriage of Guilardi, 200 Cal.App.4th 770 (2011), it found that case distinguishable because ex-wife in Mathur had mental health issues at the time she signed the MSA such that needs-based equality was necessary to litigate whether than agreement was valid.