Case Remanded On Ex-Wife’s Request For $337,236 In Fees For DVPA Proceeding.
Where a litigant is involved with classic contractual interpretation of a fees clause without any conflicting extrinsic evidence, the result can be a de novo review shocker as revealed in Marriage of Fischer, Case No. A160179 (1st Dist., Div. 2 February 8, 2022) (unpublished).
In this one, ex-wife prevailed in a DVPA proceeding against ex-husband despite the existence of an earlier dissolution agreement with allocation of how attorney’s fees were to be resolved. However, nothing in the agreement or hearings specified that the dissolution agreement applied to the subsequent DVPA proceeding where wife prevailed and sought $337,236 in attorney’s fees. The lower court denied fees, but the appellate court reversed after scouring the record and determining that the distinct DVPA proceeding was not encompassed within the dissolution agreement provisions with respect to fees. So, the matter was remanded with a potential bright upside for ex-wife given the lack of conflicting extrinsic parol evidence.
Comments