Result Is Close To A “Wash.”
In In re Ankola, Case Nos. H045092 et al. (6th Dist. Aug. 12, 2020) (published), ex-spouses got involved in some nullity/domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) actions—actually two DVRO actions against each—with mixed success on the DVRO proceedings. At the end of the day, ex-wife lost the first one, with the trial judge awarding $10,000 in prevailing party fees to ex-husband. However, there are subsequent subplots to this case. Ex-wife later brought a second DVRO action which the trial judge granted, later awarding her $10,562.50 in fees. Close to a wash? Right. Not so fast, as lower court proceedings soon showed.
Trial judge, based on new evidence produced at the second DVRO action in ex-wife’s favor, “rescinded” the prior fee order in favor of ex-husband in the first DVRO action. The lower court did so, ostensibly because it believed ex-husband was untruthful in the second DVRO action. Ex-husband appealed, and he should be glad he did.
Although the fees order in the second DVRO was affirmed as to ex-wife (even though ex-husband prematurely appealed, an appeal which was saved by the appellate court on equitable grounds), ex-husband obtained a reversal on the “rescission” of the prior fee award in his favor in the first DVRO action. The reason? The lower court rescinded based on new evidence, such that this was an improper reconsideration decision—more akin to a sua sponte new trial motion grant which is not within the inherent power of the lower court to do when based upon new evidence.
The result—pretty close to a wash as far as fee orders were concerned.
Comments