Davenport

Davenport v. Davenport

Good Law
125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 292·194 Cal. App. 4th 1507
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 4, 2011No. A126181California10,769 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Richman, J.

Appellant Jill L. Davenport and respondent Ken L. Davenport were married in 1948, a marriage that would produce three daughters and a vast estate. Jill 1 and Ken separated in 1990, and in 2006 Jill filed a petition for dissolution. The petition was filed by a long-established Sonoma County law firm, signed by an experienced lawyer there. Early on, a young and inexperienced attorney at that firm became Jill’s primary attorney, and interacted with Ken’s attorneys for the next two years, interactions that would generate a 35-page register of actions and 19 volumes of court files.

In May 2008 Jill filed a motion under Family Code section 271 2 seeking $600,861 in attorney fees and $332,933 in costs. Ken responded with a section 271 request of his own, and the cross-motions were heard over a five-day period by the Honorable Cereña Wong, an experienced family law judge who had been handling the matter for well over a year. Following extensive post hearing submissions, Judge Wong issued a 31-page decision that denied Jill’s request and granted Ken’s, awarding him $100,000 in sanctions and $304,387 in attorney fees.

Jill appeals, asserting procedural and substantive arguments,…

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.