Lafargue-Guilardi v. Guilardi
200 Cal. App. 4th 770
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- In 2005, after a 16-year marriage, the parties executed a marital settlement agreement (MSA) addressing property division, support, and custody, incorporated into a judgment.
- In 2006 Wife moved to set aside the judgment and MSA citing fraud, mistake, duress, perjury, and noncompliance with Family Code provisions; the motion was denied in 2009.
- The 2009 order found the MSA inequitable on its face but not invalid, noting Wife knowingly entered into it and had access to independent counsel but chose not to obtain it.
- In 2009 Wife sought pendente lite attorney fees under Family Code section 2030, claiming fees for challenging the set-aside of the MSA; Husband moved to dismiss based on the MSA’s fee provision.
- The superior court granted the dismissal, concluding the MSA contained an implicit waiver of future claims for fees, and that, even if §2030 allowed fees, it would be unfair given Wife’s unsuccessful challenge and destruction of the prenuptial agreement.
- Wife appealed, challenging the implied waiver and, alternatively, the denial on the need-based grounds, but the appellate court affirmed the waiver and the alternative ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the MSA implicitly waive pendente lite fees under §2030? | Wife argued no explicit waiver; §2030 should apply for need-based fees. | Husband argued the MSA’s broad language implied waiver of future fee claims. | Waiver implied; fees not awarded. |
| If waiver exists, can need-based §2030 fees still be awarded given circumstances? | Wife contends statutory rights to fees could coexist with the prevailing-party provision. | Husband contends waiver and circumstances justify withholding fees. | Court rejected need-based award on the alternative ground (waiver sufficed). |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Fox, 42 Cal.2d 49 (Cal. 1954) (explicit waiver of fees controls absent contrary statutory rights)
- Lesh v. Lesh, 8 Cal.App.3d 883 (Cal. App. 1970) (explicit waiver of fees precludes statutory recovery)
- Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 155 Cal.App.2d 715 (Cal. App. 1957) (denial of statutory fees upheld under waiver)
- Taliaferro v. Taliaferro, 200 Cal.App.2d 190 (Cal. App. 1962) (implied waiver of fees in broad settlement language)
- Grolla v. Grolla, 151 Cal.App.2d 253 (Cal. App. 1957) (implied waiver of costs and fees)
- Nacht v. Nacht, 167 Cal.App.2d 254 (Cal. App. 1959) (right to need-based statutory fees to challenge agreement validity)
- Spreckels v. Spreckels, 111 Cal.App.2d 529 (Cal. App. 1952) (pendente lite fees justified when validity of agreement undecided)
- Locke Paddon v. Locke Paddon, 194 Cal. 73 (Cal. 1924) (fee awards despite settlement waivers when validity unresolved)
- In re Marriage of Sherman, 162 Cal.App.3d 1132 (Cal. App. 1984) (MSA fee provisions and prevailing-party concepts discussed)