No Oral Hearing Was Required On Needs-Based Request And Denial Of Ex Parte Request, Which Was Never Ruled On Anyway, Was Nonprejudicial.
Ex-wife brought a last-minute request for $100,000 in needs-based attorney’s fees after resting her case-in-chief because she needed some more expert help and money for her attorney’s closing argument. The lower court denied the request, finding that husband’s living expenses made him unable to pay this and also determining that the request was unreasonable given that wife had rested her case-in-chief. Ex-wife renewed the request in an ex parte motion, with the lower court granting an alternative request but not ruling on the Family Code section 2020/2032 renewed request.
The lower court’s determinations were affirmed on appeal in Marriage of Tearse, Case No. A156538 (1st Dist., Div. 4 Oct. 15, 2020) (unpublished).
It was not irrational for the lower court to fail to rule on a later ex parte request for fees where the request was repetitious and there were unchanged circumstances. (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke, 203 Cal.App.4th 964, 976 (2012).) The appellate court agreed that it was unreasonable for ex-wife to ask for $100,000 in fees to develop a closing argument. The denial of the ex parte request was not prejudicial because the earlier ruling clearly discerned how the family law court exercised its discretion. Finally, the lower court did not have to hold oral argument on the needs-based fees request because it did provide each side an opportunity to present its position in writing on the papers (satisfying due process concerns), with no different outcome likely in any event had an oral hearing been held based on the record before the reviewing court.
Comments