Punsly

Punsly v. Ho

Caution
105 Cal. App. 4th 102·129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 89·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 18·2003 Daily Journal DAR 285·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 240
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 8, 2003D039312California5,817 words

Opinion

Opinion

Huffman, J.

In this family law dispute, defendant and appellant Manwah Ho appeals from an order denying her motion for attorney fees under the private attorney general theory of Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 (hereafter section 1021.5). Ho sought an award of fees incurred in a visitation dispute with the paternal grandparents of her daughter Kathryn, plaintiffs and respondents Marilyn and Bernard Punsly. Ho contends that since the legal position she took in the visitation dispute was ultimately upheld in a published opinion of this court, Punsly v. Ho (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1099 [ 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 139 ] (our prior opinion), she meets the criteria for an award of attorney fees under section 1021.5, because her appeal (1) served to vindicate an important public right; (2) conferred a significant benefit on the general public or a large class of persons; and (3) was necessary and imposed a financial burden on her which was out of proportion to her individual stake in the matter. (Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council (1979) 23 Cal.3d 917, 933 [ 154 Cal.Rptr. 503 , 593 P.2d 200 ].)

In denying the motion, the trial court relied on the following findings: Neither Ho…

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.