Family Law: Well-Known Sports Physician Dr. Michael Mellman Ordered To Pay $70,000 Out Of Requested $102,000 To Former Wife

Second District, Division 8 Affirms Family Law Judge’s Fee Ruling.

     Dr. Michael Mellman is well known for having served as a team physician for the Los Angeles Dodgers and Los Angeles Kings. The next case illustrates that even celebrities get to suffer the sting of attorney’s fees as a result of litigation matters.

     After almost 19 years of marriage, doctor’s wife filed a dissolution petition. Dr. Mellman apparently represented himself in numerous divorce proceedings, while ex-wife retained her own counsel. Following an award of spousal support to Kim, she asked for attorney’s fees of approximately $102,000 under both Family Code section 2030 (needs-based statute) and 271 (sanctions for not being cooperative during the divorce proceedings). The family law judge ordered the doctor to pay his ex-wife these fees: $50,000 pursuant to section 2030 and $20,000 pursuant to section 271. Being displeased with the result, doctor appealed both the spousal support and fees award.

     He lost on both counts on appeal in Mellman v. Mellman, Case No. B211603 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Nov. 3, 2009) (unpublished).

     The Court of Appeal has a nice discussion of sections 2030 and 271, which we have discussed in past posts which are accumulated in our home-page category “Family Law.”

     With respect to the 2030 award of $50,000, the evidence did show a disparity in the income and earning potentials of the two parties, with such a disparity in itself demonstrating “need” even though the applicant spouse admittedly has funds to pay his/her fees. (In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4^th 269, 315 (2001); BLOG OBSERVATION—Cheriton is must reading in this area.) Even though doctor paid no fees and this is a factor to weigh in the 2030 equation, it did not mean ex-wife was not entitled to fees to level the playing field with counsel of her choice.

     The 271 award of $20,000 was no abuse of discretion, according to the appellate panel, because doctor adopted an unreasonable settlement posture and litigation approach in the view of the lower court. No error was found, especially given that the lower court penned a 44-page statement of decision on all the issues (including the fees orders).