271 Fees Of $400,000 And 2030 Fees Of $60,000 Affirmed On Appeal.
Ex-husband in Marriage of Regalbuto, Case Nos. B310897/B310917 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 16, 2022) (unpublished) got a “double whammy” in a consolidated domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) trial against two ex-wives. He lost the trial and, during the way and afterwards, the family law trial judge granted ex-wife Lotte $400,000 in Family Code section 271 fees out of a requested $462,000 (payable $80,000 yearly, with ex-husband missing the first installment) and granted ex-wife Susan $60,000 in Family Code section 2030 fees (out of a requested $130,000), diminishing the requested amounts after finding some “contributory negligence” by the two ex-wives.
Husband appealed, claiming principally that he did not have the ability to pay and that loans/gifts from his parents should not be counted in the ability to pay analysis. After invoking its discretion to not dismiss the appeal under the disentitlement doctrine for failing to make the first $80,000 payment to Lotte and allegedly not making child support payments (the latter being contested), the 2/3 DCA disagreed that ex-husband not have the ability to pay despite recognizing that the two fee awards were substantial in nature. It found that the loans/gifts could be counted, as well as monthly trust distributions to ex-husband by his parents and his living rent free in his parents’ Santa Monica condominium transferred to them completely with no real explanation. (In re Marriage of Smith, 242 Cal.App.4th 529, 531-535 (2015).) Susan was a freelance makeup artist, so there was a disparity in access to funds. As far as the bottom-line math, ex-husband received about $140,000 in employment and parent funding and had yearly expenses for fees and child support of $180,000. However, given the help from parents, the awards—though high—were no abuse of discretion in the end.
Comments