Various Technical and Due Process Argument Rejected.
In Faton v. Ahmedo, Case No. D066119 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Apr. 22, 2015) (unpublished), the man in a domestic violence restraining order battle with a lady he dated for a period of time eventually lost the DVRO proceeding and then was ordered to pay attorney’s fees of $5,000 out of a requested $12,655 under Family Code section 6344(a), which states: “After notice and a hearing the court may issue an order for payment of attorney’s fees and costs of the prevailing party.” The order was made after consideration of the lady’s request in a post-DVRO fee proceeding, even though the lady did not check a request for fees in the initial Judicial Council DVRO forms.
Appellant’s numerous challenges to the fee award did not succeed on review.
Appellant first argued fees were forfeited because a Judicial Council form requesting fees was not checked. This one did not resonate because statutory attorney’s fees do not need to be pled and proven as damages. (Mabee v. Nurseryland Garden Centers, Inc., 88 Cal.App.3d 420, 425 (1979).)
Next up, appellant argued that section 6344 does not permit an attorney’s fees request to be made after the conclusion of the DVRO evidentiary hearing won by respondent. However, the appellate court could find nothing in the DVRO statutory scheme intended to deprive a lower court of jurisdiction to award fees even though the request was not made in the initial standard court forms.
Given that appellant did have an opportunity to contest the fee request at a separate hearing, the due process argument did not gain traction on appeal.
Finally, the reduction in requested fees by over $7,500 showed that the fee order was reasonable.