Sharples v. Sharples
223 Cal. App. 4th 160
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Wife (Linda) filed an Order to Show Cause seeking pendente lite attorney fees ($20k, later $30k) and expert accounting fees, supported by her declaration, counsel’s declaration, and an Income & Expense Declaration. Husband opposed on reasonableness grounds but did not assert procedural defects.
- Wife alleged little/no income and substantial monthly expenses; Husband had high business income and had provided $10,000 toward fees. Counsel described need for an accountant and his billing rates.
- The trial court denied the fee request solely because Wife did not file Judicial Council form FL-319, stating the form was "mandatory." The court made no findings on statutory factors (Family Code §§ 2030/2032).
- Rule 5.93 (former Cal. Rules of Court) required filing either form FL-319 or a comparable declaration; FL-319 itself is labeled "Form Approved for Optional Use."
- The Court of Appeal held the trial court erred: FL-319 is optional if a comparable declaration is filed, and the trial court failed to exercise statutory discretion or make required findings. The order denying fees was reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judicial Council form FL-319 was mandatory to obtain attorney fees under Fam. Code § 2030 | FL-319 is optional; comparable declarations Wife filed satisfy rule requirements | FL-319 is mandatory as Legislature required a form and local rule requires FL-319 | FL-319 is not mandatory if a comparable declaration is filed; rule 5.93 allows either FL-319 or a comparable declaration |
| Whether the trial court properly denied fees solely for not filing FL-319 | Denial was error because court must consider statutory factors and Wife provided equivalent information | Court correctly applied mandatory-form requirement to deny fees | Reversed: court abused discretion by not considering merits and required statutory findings under §§ 2030/2032 |
| Whether statutory language ("shall develop a form") makes the Judicial Council form mandatory | "Shall" refers to developing a form for the information to be submitted, not mandating the form itself | Legislative "shall" means adoption and mandatory use of the form | Legislature required a form for the information, not mandatory use of that specific form; comparable declarations suffice |
| Effect of local rule requiring FL-319 for settlement conferences | Local rule inapplicable here and cannot override state rules | Local rule supports mandatory usage | Local rule either inapplicable (different context) or invalid to the extent it conflicts with statewide rules |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Keech, 75 Cal.App.4th 860 (affirming policy of parity in representation under family law)
- Alan S. v. Superior Court, 172 Cal.App.4th 238 (describing purpose of § 2030 as parity, not wealth redistribution)
- In re Marriage of Cryer, 198 Cal.App.4th 1039 (discussing application of §§ 2030/2032 factors)
- In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke, 203 Cal.App.4th 964 (trial court must consider statutory factors when awarding fees)
- In re Marriage of Tharp, 188 Cal.App.4th 1295 (family court has latitude but must exercise discretion and consider statutory factors)
- In re Marriage of Gray, 155 Cal.App.4th 504 (failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion)
- Richards, Watson & Gershon v. King, 39 Cal.App.4th 1176 (same principle regarding required exercise of discretion)
- Elkins v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 1337 (local rules cannot conflict with statewide rules)
- Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., 16 Cal.4th 953 (supremacy of state rules over conflicting local rules)
- In re Marriage of Woolsey, 220 Cal.App.4th 881 (local rules conflicting with state rules are invalid)