Reported / Citable
Background
After a long marriage involving substantial assets, Erin Kelley opposed Tony Trousset’s request to modify support and sought postjudgment attorney fees. Although both parties held millions in assets, Tony continued earning substantial investment-banking income while Erin was unemployed.
The family court denied Erin’s fee request, criticizing the amount and reasonableness of her fees. Its oral and written rulings did not clearly state the findings Family Code section 2030 requires concerning disparity in access to funds, ability to pay, and whether an award is appropriate.
The Court’s Holding
The First District reversed the section 2030 ruling. Trial courts must make express findings on each statutory factor, and an appellate court may not infer them when the ruling is ambiguous and the evidence supports competing conclusions. The record showed a reasonable probability that proper findings about income, liquidity, and access to counsel could have produced some award.
The court encouraged a granular review rather than treating all requested fees as unreasonable with a broad brush. It separately held that Family Code section 3557 did not apply: merely opposing a request to modify child support is not an action to enforce an existing support order where no noncompliance is alleged.
Key Takeaways
- Section 2030 requires express findings on access disparity, ability to pay, and appropriateness of a fee award.
- Substantial assets on both sides do not eliminate the need to compare practical access to litigation funds.
- A court assessing reasonableness should distinguish compensable work from excessive work rather than reject the request wholesale.
- Defending against support modification is not, by itself, enforcement under section 3557.
Why It Matters
Family-law practitioners should build a current, concrete record of income, liquidity, legal expenses, and each party’s ability to finance the litigation. Proposed orders should separately address every mandatory finding so the basis for the ruling is reviewable.
The decision is especially useful in high-asset cases, where nominal wealth can obscure a meaningful difference in cash flow and access to counsel.