Order to Pay Minor Attorney's Fees
**NOT TO BE PUBLISHED**
Marriage of Lazor and Schoenbrun
Father was ordered to pay $14,500 in legal fees to the attorney appointed by the court to represent couple's three children during the divorce; mother's attorney had requested that an attorney be appointed. He argues that the Marin County local rule authorizing payments is inconsistent with the Family Code.
Initially, the appointed attorney ("Lueders") was to be paid the "court rate" of $65 per hour; the fees were to be split equally by the parents. Later in the hearing, mom's attorney suggested that Lueders be paid normal rates ($250/hr). In January 2007, Lueders filed motion for his fees and costs - father owned $14,500.
In response to Lueders's motion, father argued that he did not have the financial ability to pay. He also argued that the order did not comply with Family Code, section 3153 because it allowed for the order without determining ability to pay as there was no sum certain. The lower court held that this father must make this argument in the form of a Motion for Modification of the original order, not in a reply brief to motion for fees. Father now argues that this burden is improper.
HELD: father waived right to object to order as he had already begun paying a portion of it. He also failed to bring a motion to modify based on his inability to pay. Further, it is not clear that the trial court did not conduct a proper examination into ability to pay as father's counsel assented to the agreement at the time of appointment.
Marriage of Lazor and Schoenbrun
Father was ordered to pay $14,500 in legal fees to the attorney appointed by the court to represent couple's three children during the divorce; mother's attorney had requested that an attorney be appointed. He argues that the Marin County local rule authorizing payments is inconsistent with the Family Code.
Initially, the appointed attorney ("Lueders") was to be paid the "court rate" of $65 per hour; the fees were to be split equally by the parents. Later in the hearing, mom's attorney suggested that Lueders be paid normal rates ($250/hr). In January 2007, Lueders filed motion for his fees and costs - father owned $14,500.
In response to Lueders's motion, father argued that he did not have the financial ability to pay. He also argued that the order did not comply with Family Code, section 3153 because it allowed for the order without determining ability to pay as there was no sum certain. The lower court held that this father must make this argument in the form of a Motion for Modification of the original order, not in a reply brief to motion for fees. Father now argues that this burden is improper.
HELD: father waived right to object to order as he had already begun paying a portion of it. He also failed to bring a motion to modify based on his inability to pay. Further, it is not clear that the trial court did not conduct a proper examination into ability to pay as father's counsel assented to the agreement at the time of appointment.
<< Home