Monday, April 6, 2026
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Family Code Provisions Prevail Over Contract Principles
Award to Wife Properly Took Into Account Husband’s Limited Finances, Despite Clause in Settlement Agreement Saying That Prevailing Party in Dispute Would Receive ‘Reasonable Legal Fees,’ Opinion Declares
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A judge in a marital-dissolution case may whittle down an award of attorney fees based on equitable considerations despite the spouses having contractually agreed that the prevailing party in a dispute would be entitled a reasonable amount to cover lawyer bills, Div. Six of the Court of Appeal for this district held on Friday.
Appellant Julie Bowman argued that she was shortchanged when San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Matthew G. Guerrero, acting pursuant to Family Code provisions, awarded her $12,500 instead of the $49,312.48 she had sought in fees and costs after prevailing on all of issues in a dispute. She pointed to a clause in a marital settlement agreement (“MSA”) signed by her and husband Charles Bowman saying:
“In the event any further action is ever brought to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive from the other party such reasonable legal fees and necessary costs as shall be affixed by the Court.”
Civil Code §1717
The appellant invoked Civil Code §1717(a), which provides:
“[I]n any action on a contract, where the contract specifically provides that attorney’s fees and costs, which are incurred to enforce that contract, shall be awarded...to the prevailing party, then the party who is determined to be the party prevailing on the contract...shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees in addition to other costs.”
She argued on appeal:
“Yes, trial courts have broad discretion in awarding attorney fees, but that discretion is not unlimited.
“The trial court here erred as a matter of law because it improperly applied the Family Law fee statutes instead of the prevailing party contract provision.”
The appellant maintained that in applying contract principles to the spouses’ contract, the court:
“1. cannot consider the ability of the losing party to pay,
“2. must objectively determine a reasonable award, and
“3. must apply the vital lodestar approach.”
Yegan’s Opinion
Disagreeing Justice Kenneth Yegan said in Friday’s opinion that under Family Code §§2030 and 2032, Guerrero properly took into account the parties’ respective abilities to pay their attorneys. He wrote:
“We hold that, in determining the amount of fees where the MSA includes a prevailing party attorney’s fees clause, the trial court retains discretion to consider the factors set forth in sections 2030 and 2032, including the losing party’s ability to pay. Wife has not shown that the trial court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion in considering the Family Code factors. She forgets that the family law court is a court of fairness and equity.”
He also observed that the language of the MSA “placed no limit on the factors the trial court could consider in determining the amount of reasonable attorney’s fees to be awarded.”
The case is Marriage of Bowman, 2026 S.O.S. 942.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company