Bendetti v. Bendetti
214 Cal. App. 4th 863
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- In a dissolution proceeding, Jeanette Bendetti alleged Paul Bendetti fraudulently transferred property to his second wife Gunness and joined Gunness as a third party.
- Jeanette sought pendente lite attorney fees against Paul and Gunness to enforce spousal support, join Gunness, and pursue asset-related motions.
- The trial court awarded partial attorney fees totaling $131,750 after considering various tasks and denied $100,000; Gunness appealed.
- The MSA/1994 dissolution involved community interests in two restaurants (Library I & II) with a contemplated purchase by DeLamos for $400,000 and a required note to Jeanette for her half share.
- Paul’s financial disclosures and the Mastro litigation (including Gunness’s involvement and alleged fraudulent transfers) raised issues linking Gunness to the dissolution proceedings.
- Jeanette’s efforts culminated in 2008–2010 proceedings to join Gunness and pursue relief, culminating in the trial court’s pendente lite fee awards against Gunness and Paul.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2030(d) permits pendente lite fees against a nonspouse third party without showing likelihood of success. | Bendetti contends fee shift is permissible regardless of likelihood of success. | Gunness argues need for likelihood of success and prima facie link to issues. | Yes; court held third-party fees may be awarded without likelihood-of-success showing. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Sullivan, 37 Cal.3d 762 (Cal. 1984) (need-based fees considered; discretion of trial court)
- In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke, 164 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2008) (need-based attorney fees; burden on need)
- In re Marriage of Siller, 187 Cal.App.3d 36 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1986) (third-party fee shifting; 'specious' claims; due process)
- Gemini Aluminum Corp. v. California Custom Shapes, Inc., 95 Cal.App.4th 1249 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2002) (definition of specious or frivolous claims)
- Kevin Q. v. Lauren W., 195 Cal.App.4th 633 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2011) (recognizes continuation of 2030 provisions)