Washington v. Washington
Before: Dooling
163 Cal.App.2d 129 (1958) LEOLA WASHINGTON, Respondent,
v.
GEORGE WASHINGTON, Appellant.
Civ. No. 17855. California Court of Appeals. First Dist., Div. Two.
Aug. 25, 1958. Edward D. Mabson for Appellant.
Terry A. Francois and Carl B. Metoyer for Respondent.
DOOLING, J.
Defendant appeals from an order for attorney's fees and costs to enable plaintiff to resist two appeals taken by defendant from two orders in plaintiff's favor.
A final decree of divorce was entered herein on May 11, 1951. By the terms of that judgment, which has long since become final, the custody of the minor child of the parties was awarded to plaintiff but no order for any payments for the support of said child was included therein, nor did said judgment contain any provision for alimony.
On February 10, 1955, the court made an order modifying the final decree to require defendant thereafter to pay $75 per month for the support of the child. No appeal was taken from this order. On December 14, 1956, the court found that the sum of $1,650 was accrued and unpaid under the previous order for child support. Defendant filed notice of appeal from this order.
On October 22, 1946, before the entry of the interlocutory decree of divorce herein, the court made an order for temporary alimony. No appeal was taken from this order. On December 31, 1956, the court made an order imposing a lien upon the balance remaining from the judgment recovered by defendant in Washington v. City & County of San Francisco, 123 Cal.App.2d 235 [266 P.2d 828], to secure the balance accrued and unpaid to plaintiff herein under said order for temporary alimony. Defendant appealed from this order.
It was to enable plaintiff to oppose these two appeals that the order herein appealed from was made.
[1a] The basic power to allow attorney's fees and costs to enable plaintiff to oppose the two appeals is found in Civil Code, section 137.3, as it read in April 1957 when the order appealed from was made. That section after providing for the award of attorney's fees and costs during the pendency of an action for divorce, continued: "In respect to services rendered after the entry of judgment ... the court may award such costs and attorney's fees as may be reasonably necessary to maintain or defend any subsequent proceeding therein ..." (Stats. 1953, p. 1864.) We have no doubt that this language is broad enough to give the court power to allow reasonable attorney's fees and costs in any proceeding taken
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)