Grandfather, Who Paid Almost $500,000 To His Own Attorneys, Stipulated That He Could Afford To Pay Any Reasonable Amount Of Attorney Fees – Even Into The Hundreds Of Thousands Of Dollars – While Father’s Income & Expense Declarations Indicated A Monthly Income Of Only About $2,100.
After his daughter’s health deteriorated, grandfather stepped in her place in a highly contentious custody battle against grandson’s father – with grandfather seeking nonparent custody of grandson in Robert I. v. Alisa B., Case No. A157943 (1st Dist., Div. 2 March 29, 2021) (unpublished). Trial did not go grandfather’s way and the trial court awarded custody to grandson’s father. On appeal, however, grandfather contested only the trial court’s orders on attorneys’ fees.
The trial court, before trial, had ordered grandfather to advance $10,000 in attorney fees to father under the provisions of the Uniform Parentage Act (Family Code § 7600, et. seq.), plus another $25,000 through a later interim order, due to the disparity between grandfather’s and father’s ability to retain counsel. Finally, in its statement of decision, the trial court ordered grandfather to pay father’s attorney fees of $31,820 and granted grandson’s court-appointed counsel’s motion for an order requiring grandfather to pay his fees – to the tune of another $137,010.
As to the fee awards to father, grandfather argued that the trial court lacked authority to award the initial $10,000 because father had not requested fees and had also failed to file a current Income and Expense Declaration at that point. Grandfather also argued that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the interim award, and the final award at the conclusion of trial because the Income and Expense Declarations filed by father at those times were deficient.
Moving to his challenges to the fee award to grandson’s court-appointed counsel, grandfather argued that the trial court had acted in excess of its jurisdiction by awarding the fees without complying with statutory requirements, and had erred by failing to analyze the parties’ financial circumstances in making the award.
The 1/2 DCA affirmed. The trial court had properly issued an order to show cause (Fam. Code § 7605(e)) and considered the sworn testimony of father regarding his income before making the initial order. As to the remaining awards to father, grandfather cited no authority suggesting legal error to award attorney fees in the absence of a perfect Income and Expense Declaration. As to the fees awarded to grandson’s counsel, the panel found that it would have been preferable for the trial court to have determined reasonable compensation sooner, but that California Rules of Court, Rule 5.241(a)(1)(B) allowed the trial court to make that determination at the time it determined the parties’ ability to pay.
In the end, father’s monthly income was approximately $2,100, while grandfather had stipulated that that he could pay any reasonable amount of fees, even into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and had paid his own attorneys just shy of $500,000. With the purpose behind an award of attorney’s fees, pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act, being to level the playing field and insure each party has access to legal representation, the panel found no error, nor abuse of discretion.