Alan S. Was the Anchor Here, Meaning that Some Record of Relevant Factor Analysis Is Necessary in Family Law Cases.
Although unpublished, the next case seems to portend the importance of Alan S. v. Superior Court, 172 Cal.App.4th 238 (2009), a decision authored by (just retired) Justice Sills of the Fourth District, Division 3.
The Third District in In re Marriage of Shurr, Case No. C063677 (3d Dist. June 28, 2011) (unpublished) reversed an award of over $18,000 in attorney’s fees under Family Code section 2030 to ex-wife. The reason? There was no explanation for the fee award or analysis of the relevant needs-based factors, as required under Alan S.
BLOG UNDERVIEW--Alan S. did stress that no particular language is needed, although we can certainly argue that a mini-statement of decision or articulation of weighing needs-based factors is necessary. Clearly, something more than a simple grant or denial is necessary in family law cases, suggesting that the “no statement of decision” analysis is yielding to something less precise, but more than just a terse “grant or deny.” We will have to see how this plays out in this area. It will be interesting to see if Alan S. is complied with by a family law judge indicating that the needs-based factors were weighed, but no real analysis other than this statement. Stay tuned, our readers.
Tuning Fork. Wikipedia.
Comments