Family Law, Fee Clause Interpretation: Narrower Fees Clause Did Not Preempt Family Code Section 2030/271 Fee Award To Wife

 

Clause Much Narrower Than Preemptive Fees Clause in Guilardi Opinion.

     Ex-wife in Marriage of Dryer, Case No. H038921 (6^th Dist. Feb. 20, 2015) (unpublished) garnered Family Code section 2030/271 fees totaling $60,000 against ex-husband, who principally argued that a marital settlement agreement (MSA) fees clause was broad enough to “trump” fee recovery under the Family Code sections.

     This argument did not resonate on appeal based on the particular wording of the fees clause in question.

     In In re Marriage of Guilardi, 200 Cal.App.4^th 770 (2011) [see our post of Nov. 8, 2011], the MSA fees clause contained broad “arising out of” language found to preempt Family Code provisions to the contrary. However, in contrast, the fees clause here only encompassed activities “undertaken to enforce any provision of this Agreement,” much narrower and not precluding Family Code fee-shifting.

     Family Code section 271 sanctions were justified because the record showed ex-husband’s stances on mediation were unreasonable in nature.

     BLOG UNDERVIEW—Co-contributor Marc has a separate post on mediation aspects of this decision in his blog, California Mediation and Arbitration.