| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Request for Order: Add-on Child Expenses; Prevailing party attorneys' fees
This matter was continued and is set for hearing on Respondent/Wife’s requests for prevailing party attorneys’ fees and costs, per Family Code §6344, and re: child support add-on expenses.
Prevailing Party Attorneys’ Fees
In her 2/13/2026 Declaration, Wife asked the Court to order Husband to pay her attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $57,155.39 ($54,035 in fees and $3,120.39 in costs). The Court noted in its 2/24/2026 Findings and Order After Hearing that it did not have sufficient information to decide this issue and deferred the matter until both parties provided all of the requisite financial information and documentation.
On 3/10/2026 Respondent filed an updated Declaration of Counsel in Support of Respondent’s Request for Attorneys’ Fees, which adjusted Respondent’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs to $89,409.27 ($79,372 in fees and $7,037.27 in costs) for additional legal work done after 12/4/2025 through March 2026, primarily related to the issue of Husband’s request for a firearm exemption, including discovery, preparation for the evidentiary hearing and preparation of trial brief and related filings, review of Husband’s trial brief, and attendance at the evidentiary hearing.
The Court has reviewed the billing invoices submitted by Mr. Neufer, the 4/2/2026 Declaration of Kate Merrill in Opposition to Respondent’s Request for Attorneys’ Fees and Memorandum of Points and Authorities, as well as Father’s current Income & Expense Declaration and updated financial information from both parties, including their Schedules of Assets & Debts, and the parties’ 2023 and 2024 joint income tax returns.
As noted, Mother’s request for attorneys’ fees is made on her being a prevailing party, pursuant to Family Code §6344, which provides that, after notice and hearing, the Court shall issue an
order for payment of attorneys’ fees and costs to the prevailing party. [Emphasis added.] It is undisputed that Wife was the prevailing party, as a Restraining Order After Hearing was issued on 3/16/2026 with Husband as the restrained person and Wife and the parties’ children as protected persons.
But the analysis does not stop there. Family Code §6344
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Petitioner raises three arguments in opposition to Wife’s request: (1) The $36,566.41 in fees and costs related to the firearm exemption requested by Husband should be excluded because this issue is entirely distinct and unrelated to the DVRO, and Wife is not the prevailing party on that issue because the firearm exemption requested by Husband was granted over Wife’s opposition; (2) the $57,155.39 for fees and costs billed through 12/4/2026 should be reduced by what Husband suggests are ‘billing improprieties’; and (3) Husband does not have the ability to pay the requested fees.
Exclusion of Fees and Costs Incurred In Connection With Firearm Exemption
First, the Court disagrees with Husband’s assertion that the firearm exemption issue is entirely separate and distinct from the DVRO so as to preclude an award of fees and costs incurred related thereto, but finds that that the firearm exemption is an integral part of the DVRO, as evidenced by the fact that it required to be included in the DVRO. Further, the Court finds Husband’s reliance on Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal. 4th 1122, 1132 and Faton v. Ahmedo (2015) 236 Cal. App. 4th 1160, 1169 is misplaced, as both cases are readily distinguishable from the present case and, therefore, inapposite.
Husband contends the DVRO issues were resolved in 12/2025; however, they were not resolved at that time precisely because Husband requested an evidentiary hearing on the firearms exemption. At the request of Husband, who sought to resolve issues related to his possession of firearms, the Court extended the Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and issuance of the DVRO was deferred to allow for an evidentiary hearing on the firearm exemption. (See Findings and Order After Hearing filed 2/24/2026.)
The DVRO issued by the Court on 3/16/2026 (Form DV-130), page 3, item 8 specifically prohibits a restrained party from having possession of guns, firearm parts or ammunition unless express permission has been given by the Court for the restrained party to have firearms or ammunition for work. See, also, DV-850 attached to and incorporated into the 3/16/2026 DVRO which grants the firearm exception with the added order that “Restrained party is required to check all guns and firearms at FBI San Francisco after work day, to be stored in weapons locker, and picked up on arrival at work the next day.
To be confirmed by supervisor.”
The fact that a court does not find in favor of every contested issue or allegation in a DVRO does not support the conclusion that the requested party did not prevail on the DVRO. Given the Court’s findings that the firearm exemption is an integral part of the DVRO and that Wife is the prevailing party on the DVRO, the Court denies Husband’s request to find Wife was not the prevailing party on the firearms exemption, as well as the request that the fees and costs
attributable to the firearm exemption should not be considered related to the DVRO. Further, the Court denies Husband’s alternative request that the Court offset the firearm exemption fees and costs against the DVRO-related fees.
Second, after reviewing the invoices and the issues raised by Husband with regard to the ‘billing improprieties,’ the Court did find some entries that included billing that was beyond the scope of the DVRO, including references to preparation for mediation and dissolution issues, as well as some entries for paralegal time which are really better classified as clerical work, including downloading documents, assembling blank forms, receiving and indexing proofs of service, and the like. More importantly, the Court finds that, given the totality of the circumstances, including that the DVRO was stipulated to, the firearm exemption issue was not particularly complex, and the actual length of the 12/4/2026 DVRO hearing was 1 hour and 45 minutes and the length of the firearms exemption hearing was two and one-half hours, the Court finds $65,000 to be a reasonable amount of attorneys’ fees and costs.
Husband’s Ability to Pay
Third is the issue of whether Husband’s has the ability, or is likely to have the ability, to pay Wife $65,000 for her fees. Per Husband’s 5/15/2026 I&E, his average monthly earnings from the FBI are $18,859. This comports with his 5/2/2026 paystub, which reflects year-to-date earnings of $18,859.50. In addition, Husband receives $4,428/month in Veteran’s Disability benefits and $587/month in dividends/interest, for total monthly income of $23,874. Husband claims monthly living expenses of $16,434 and outstanding debts totaling $113,472. His expenses include $1,200/month for supervised visitation with his children but does not take account of the combined guideline child and spousal support of $7,970/month he was ordered to pay per the 2/24/2026 Findings & Order After Hearing.
Before the Court can make a meaningful determination as to how, what amount and when Husband will be able to pay some or all of Wife’s attorneys’ fees depends largely on information not presently known to the Court, including whether Husband will be able to maintain some employment with the FBI, or if and when he finds other employment, whether he can withdraw funds and/or borrow against his Vanguard Roth IRA and/or his TSP Plan. Although Husband identifies the Tiburon family residence as community property, the Court is unclear how valid that claim is. Until the Court has more information regarding these unknowns, the issue of attorneys’ fees must be deferred.
1. The parties are ordered to appear to provide their input.
Childcare Add-on Expenses
The only childcare add-on expenses which have been mentioned are the children’s $300/week therapy costs, which the Court has already ordered Husband to pay, and the children’s private school tuition. Given Husband’s financial circumstances, the fact that the public schools in Tiburon are excellent, and the significant disparity in the parties’ assets and apparent financial circumstances, the Court orders as follows:
1. If the children remain in private school, Wife shall be solely responsible for tuition and related school expenses.
SO ORDERED.
The Court will prepare the order.
Any party who disagrees with the Court's tentative ruling and wishes to have oral argument must notify the Court at (415) 444-7046 and opposing counsel (or if the opposing party is selfrepresented, notice must be given directly to the opposing party) of their intent to appear at the hearing for oral argument by 4:00 pm on the court day before the hearing, as required by Marin County Superior Court Family Law Local Rules 7.12(B) and (C). Notice may be given by telephone or in person. Absent proper notice, no oral argument will be permitted. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling will become the order of the Court.
Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, persons who requested oral argument must appear for the hearing in person or remotely via Zoom, in accordance with the Court website guidelines. If appearing remotely via Zoom (video or telephone), you are responsible for ensuring you have adequate connectivity; the Court may proceed in a party’s absence if technical issues arise. Proper Zoom etiquette and courtroom decorum are required, and failure to comply may result in the hearing being halted and an order to appear in person being made.