California Legal Brief

The Rule of In re Marriage of Charles and Julie Ann Bowman is that trial courts retain discretion to consider Family Code factors including the losing party's ability to pay when determining the amount of attorney's fees under a prevailing party clause in a marital settlement agreement, under circumstances where the MSA contains a general attorney's fees provision without specific limitations on the court's consideration of equitable factors.

The Rule of Steven N. v. Priscilla C. is that a voluntary declaration of parentage (VDOP) is void as a matter of law when, at the time of signing, a third party is already a presumed parent under Family Code section 7611, subdivision (b), even if that presumed parent status arises from an invalid marriage solemnized in apparent compliance with law.

The Rule of Sheerer v. Panas is that a trial court must include all bonus income and restricted stock units (RSUs) in calculating child support under the uniform statewide guideline formula, under circumstances where a parent receives such variable compensation and the court has not made proper findings to deviate from the presumptively correct guideline amount.

The Rule of In re Marriage of Jenkins is that a default judgment in dissolution proceedings that awards specific property division relief exceeds the relief requested where the dissolution petition listed all property division issues as "To be determined," under circumstances where the defaulted party lacked proper notice of the prove-up hearing and the specific property division being sought.

The Rule of Torres v. Munoz is that a court abuses its discretion by citing and relying on fictitious case authorities in its order, but a party forfeits the right to challenge such error when the party's own counsel drafted and submitted the order containing the fabricated citations without objecting or alerting the court to the fictitious nature of the authorities, under circumstances where the party had opportunity to verify citations and speak up before the court signed the order.

The Rule of In re the Domestic Partnership of Torres Campos and Munoz is that a party forfeits the right to challenge a trial court's reliance on fictitious case authorities when that party's own counsel drafted and submitted the order containing those fabricated citations without objecting or alerting the court to the error, under circumstances where the party had ample opportunity to verify the citations and correct the error in the trial court.

The Rule of Fisher v. Fisher is that intentional infliction of emotional distress can be the legal cause of a wrongful death when the tortious conduct is a substantial factor in causing severe emotional distress that leads to the victim's death, under the broader scope of liability standard applicable to intentional torts rather than the narrower "scope of risk" standard used for negligence.

The Rule of J.S. v. D.A. is that indigent inmates in bona fide civil actions that threaten their interests have a right to meaningful access to the courts to be heard in their defense, and trial courts must address and rule on such requests before proceeding without the inmate, under circumstances where an incarcerated defendant requests court assistance to participate in proceedings and the court has notice of the incarceration.

The Rule of In re Reyna R. is that a juvenile court errs in ordering a parent to pay for professional visitation monitoring without first considering the parent's ability to pay or reasonable alternatives when the parent raises a timely objection based on financial inability, under circumstances where the parent objects to professional monitoring costs at the exit order hearing.

The Rule of In re Marriage of Danielle and Lewis Allen is that parents are precluded from contractually waiving or forgiving past due child support arrearages even after the child has reached the age of majority and there is no longer a current support order in place, under circumstances where the obligor seeks to enforce an accord and satisfaction agreement for less than the full arrearage amount.

The Rule of In re Marriage of Hoch is that a family court abuses its discretion under Family Code section 271 by imposing sanctions against a party for refusing to stipulate to permit the opposing party to amend a petition from legal separation to dissolution of marriage, under circumstances where the refusal is based on conscientiously held religious beliefs and the moving party could have avoided the costs by initially filing a dissolution petition.