In Re Marriage of O'Connor

Good Law
1997 Cal. App. LEXIS 987·59 Cal. App. 4th 877·69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 480·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9059
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 2, 1997B101412California2,762 words

Opinion

Opinion

Masterson, J.

With over $3 million in attorney’s fees and costs already incurred in this acrimonious dissolution matter, husband has $2 million in assets remaining and wife has at least $40 million. Husband was awarded $250,000 in pendente lite attorney’s fees and costs early in the proceedings and was later awarded an additional $450,000 pendente lite. Wife asks this court to set the latter award aside, contending that since husband had the $450,000 available from his own assets, he failed to make a threshold showing of need for the award. We reject wife’s definition of “need,” finding that the 1990 amendment to former Civil Code section 4370.5, subdivision (b) (now Fam. Code, § 2032, subd. (b)), which permits an award of attorney’s fees and costs to a party who “has the resources from which he or she could pay his or her own attorney’s fees and costs,” means exactly what it says. Accordingly, we affirm.

Background

William O’Connor, Jr. (husband), and Karen O’Connor (wife) married in 1985 and separated in 1994. During the marriage, husband played a role in managing wife’s assets. The matter has been vigorously litigated, with the principal issues being the characterization of assets…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.