Also, Fee/Costs Award Under Indemnity Agreement Only Recoverable Against Ex-Husband, A Signatory To The Agreement, But No Fee Exposure Under The Third-Party Indemnity Provision; Needs-Based Fees Paid To Both Spouses Are Separate Debts Of Husband For His Need-Based Fees And Community Debts For Fees To Both Spouses.
Acting Presiding Justice Moore, in In re Marriage of Nakamoto and Hsu, Case No. B061363 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 3, 2024) (unpublished), dealt with a written indemnity agreement between ex-husband and his siblings (with ex-wife not being a party to the agreement). Former spouses believed that the siblings owed ex-husband roughly $3 million, which had been transmuted to community property, proceeding to a trial at which former spouses lost. The lower court awarded siblings over $2.4 million in costs and fees against ex-husband separately, ex-wife separately, and community.
On appeal, the 4/3 DCA panel agreed that only the community, not ex-wife separately, were liable for ex-husband’s indemnity obligations under Family Code section 910(a), because Family Code section 913(b) did not visit this obligation on her separately. The lower court also erred in including attorney’s fees that siblings incurred in litigating against ex-husband as to ex-wife. However, ex-husband was responsible for these fees under the indemnity fees clause, but not a third-party claims provision. Finally, needs-based fees awarded to both former spouses by siblings under Family Code section 2030 were a separate obligation of ex-husband as well as a community obligation.
Comments