Family Law Awards: Court Of Appeal Affirms $30,000 "Needs" Fee Award In Divorce Proceeding Which Could Have Come Out of "The OC"

Fourth District, Division 3 Sustains Award In a Wild Dissolution Case.

     For you television fans of "The OC," we next discuss a case that could have served as an episode on the show—only with even more startling facts than the episodes that actually aired. It also demonstrates the limits of appellate review for fee awards—the deferential abuse of discretion standard is a tough one to hurdle, especially where there were loads of financial documentation and oral testimony on the financial condition of husband and wife.

     Marriage of Jordan, Case No. G040340 (4^th Dist., Div. 3 June 3, 2009) (unpublished) involved a dissolution of the 8-year marriage of the Jordans, who had three children. They lived a luxurious lifestyle while married, with wife primarily staying home with the children and husband working for a drywall business which he solely owned (although wife occasionally worked as a waitress during the marriage). They acquired numerous cars, boats, and jet skis; they lived rent free in a large Huntington Beach house owned by husband's former employer; they employed a housekeeper, took numerous vacations, and dined our frequently. Husband apparently still lives in the house, while wife lives in an 800 square foot apartment. (Husband also admitted at a deposition that he threw bleach on wife's clothes, a $3,000 hissy fit expense.) After husband submitted financial documentation which the family law judge found to be incredible, the lower court did find that husband had the ability to make and draw from the drywall business $40,000 per month through 2006 versus Amanda's ability to earn $900 per month. Husband claimed that he had negative income, but the family law judge found that many of the deductions were improperly mischaracterized as business items (and more properly were reflected as either assets of the company or personal income to husband). Husband had managed to pay $50,000 of his attorney's fees, while wife had only been able to pay $6,728 of hers. (Wife had incurred $43,776 in fees, but still owed a $35,547.76 balance.) In the end (after awarding both child and spousal support and equalizing property payments), husband was ordered to reimburse Amanda $3,000 for the destroyed clothing and pay Amanda $30,000 for attorney's fees.

     Husband appealed, but lost.

     The attorney's fees award was reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. (In re Marriage of Cheriton, 92 Cal.App.4^th 269, 282-283, 314 (2001).) Although the statement of decision was not crystal clear (but critically not objected to), the appellate panel—in a 3-0 opinion authored by Justice O'Leary—found that the award was "needs" based under Family Code section 2032. "Although the findings were articulated in the context of fashioning the spousal support award, we see no reason for the court to have reiterated those same findings in regards to attorney fees." (Slip Opn., at p. 18.) Because the record showed that wife was clearly much more financially strapped than husband by a far stretch, there was no abuse in the award—compounded by husband's failure to comply with discovery requests for which he was sanctioned $1,500.