Anthony v. Anthony

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Divorce defendant Myron Philip Anthony appeals from an order after final judgment awarding plaintiff Oletia Marie Anthony $53,000 for attorneys’ fees.

The Anthony property settlement agreement requires defendant to pay plaintiff’s reasonable divorce and property settlement attorneys’ fees. In its interlocutory divorce decree, the trial court approved the property settlement agreement, and by stipulation of the parties in the property settlement agreement, retained jurisdiction to fix fees and costs.

In substance, defendant attacks the reasonableness of the $53,000 award. Attempting to prove an abuse of discretion, as he must for reversal

{Hicks

v.

Hicks,

249 Cal.App.2d 964, 968 [58 Cal.Rptr. 63] ;

Crevolin

v.

Crevolin,

217 Cal.App.2d 565 [31 Cal.Rptr. 622] ;

Warner

v.

Warner,

34 Cal.2d 838 [215 P.2d 20]) defendant belittles plaintiff’s attorneys’ performance by stressing the small number of papers plaintiff’s attorneys filed (three page complaint, two page answer to cross-complaint, memo for setting and notice of trial), the single deposition plaintiff’s attorneys took, and the de facto $207.03 hourly rate calculated by dividing $53,000 by the 256 hours plaintiff’s attorneys worked. These factors alone are not controlling. “Among the factors to be considered in determining what constitutes a reasonable compensation for an attorney who has rendered services in connection with a legal proceeding are the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required and the skill employed in handling the litigation, the attention given, the success of the attorney’s efforts, his learning, his age, and his experience in the particular type of work demanded (citation); the intricacies and importance of the litigation, the' labor and the necessity for skilled Jegal training and ability in trying the cause, and the time consumed, (citations). ”

(Berry

v.

Chaplin,