Apparent Transparent Asset/Income Disparity Motivated Appellate Court to Look at the “Big Picture” in Remanding on 2030 Fee Issue.
We predicted that Alan S.–an opinion from our local Santa Ana appellate court–would be a big one quoted often in the area of when needs-based fees should be awarded under Family Code section 2030. The next case vindicates that prediction.
In Marriage of Papazian, Case No. A128064 (1st Dist., Div. 2 May 16, 2012) (unpublished), wife got off to a bad start–even though she had a disparate lack of assets/income compared to husband–when she was hit with Family Code section 271 sanctions of $75,000, magnified by an earlier appeal where the appellate court noted that many of her arguments bordered on the frivolous on certain rulings. These determinations tainted her in subsequent proceedings, where the lower court denied her request for needs-based fees under Family Code section 2030 or sanctions under section 271 as against a more well-heeled ex-husband.
Just to show you that appellate courts can look at the matter with fresh eyes, the appellate court agreed with ex-wife that the lower court abused its discretion in not granting 2030 fees as well as should consider the 271 fee request.
The reason? Alan S.–you gotta look at the big picture. True, the lower court got distracted by the prior 271 sanctions against wife, but that did not mean she did not need a future level playing field. The “big picture” showed this: wife did not file the litigation, wife hired new counsel not infected with 271 sanction history, wife had no income, wife could not afford an accountant expert, husband did not pay child support for awhile, and husband had substantially more resources. Both the 2030 and 271 requests by wife were remanded for reconsideration, for “big picture” reasons.