On Petitioner’s RFO, filed October 25, 2016, the Court has the following Tentative Ruling:
The RFO was served by mail on Respondent’s counsel 10-27-16, well within the time parameters set forth in CCP 1005(b).
Respondent’s Responsive Declaration was not filed until December 5, 2016, when in fact CCP 1005(b) required its filing no later than November 18, 2016. Thus, the Responsive Declaration will not be considered.
The Court finds, under FC 2030(a)(2) that an award of attorney fees and costs to Petitioner is appropriate, that there is a disparity in access to funds to retain counsel, and that Respondent is able to pay for legal representation of both parties.
Based on such findings, the Court makes the following order regarding attorney fees and costs: Respondent to pay to the trust account of Petitioner’s counsel the sum of $33,900 forthwith.
The issue of FC 271 sanctions is reserved to the time of trial. The Court suggests to both parties that they keep in mind the criteria u
Hearing Date
December 07, 2016
Type
Dissolution of Marriage (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
On Petitioner’s RFO, filed October 25, 2016, the Court has the following Tentative Ruling:
The RFO was served by mail on Respondent’s counsel 10-27-16, well within the time parameters set forth in CCP 1005(b).
Respondent’s Responsive Declaration was not filed until December 5, 2016, when in fact CCP 1005(b) required its filing no later than November 18, 2016. Thus, the Responsive Declaration will not be considered.
The Court finds, under FC 2030(a)(2) that an award of attorney fees and costs to Petitioner is appropriate, that there is a disparity in access to funds to retain counsel, and that Respondent is able to pay for legal representation of both parties.
Based on such findings, the Court makes the following order regarding attorney fees and costs: Respondent to pay to the trust account of Petitioner’s counsel the sum of $33,900 forthwith.
The issue of FC 271 sanctions is reserved to the time of trial. The Court suggests to both parties that they keep in mind the criteria u