A trial court does not exceed its discretion by increasing a support order and ordering a party to pay attorney fees when the record supports such a finding. Moreover the court can order sanctions against both litigant and attorney for bringing a frivolous appeal.
Family Law Case Updates
Civil Code section 4359 provides for the issuance of a temporary restraining order against a nonparty without the necessity of joining the nonparty to maintain the status quo in a divorce proceeding.
Even if a Financial Planner's business book, or client list, was subject to continencies it is in fact a valuable asset akin to business "good will."
Temporary support orders are subject to the trial court's broad discretion and can be ordered in "any amount" based on the party's needs and supporting spouse's ability to pay.
The actual penalty imposed is determinative of whether criminal contempt is a petty or serious offense, and separate contemptuous acts arising from the same order are considered in the aggregate.
When a court sanctions a client for filing a frivolous appeal, the client's attorney has not automatically committed malpractice as a matter of law
A parent is not unduly prejudiced by unreasonable delay in pursuing support payments when he or she voluntarily abandons the child such that laches does not apply. Additionally, a paternity action is voidable under certain circumstances.
The Court of Appeal held that the husband’s conduct toward the wife in connection with the execution of the settlement agreement constituted duress sufficient for rescission of the contract; the Orange County divorce court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the wife attorney’s fees in connection with the rescission action even though the wife’s Orange County divorce attorney presented no evidence that she was in need of funds to pay her attorney; and that the Orange County divorce court did not abuse its discretion in making an award of attorney’s fees in connection with the services to be rendered at the future trial of the dissolution proceedings.
The Court of Appeal held that a memorandum of intended decision, indicating that the Orange County divorce court erroneously applied the statute retroactively in determining the amount of spousal support was not part of the record on appeal and a party could not appeal the Orange County divorce judgment on the basis of retroactive application as she failed to request a statement of decision and/or a transcript of the proceeding and the judgment was silent with respect to the Orange County divorce court’s reasoning.
The Code of Civil Procedure provides an express exemption from the five-year rule for cases where a child support order pending trial issued, even if it issued outside of a divorce proceeding.