The Court of Appeals in Tydings v. Tydings, despite a large martial settlement, awarded additional attorney fees, which was the subject of this appeal.

After extensive litigation requiring expert witnesses and financial forensics, Ms. Tydings was awarded a significant portion of marital assets.  She sought to recover over 250k in attorney fees which the trial court granted.

The primary issue on appeal was whether the trial court had discretion to require husband to pay any portion of his spouse’s attorney and witness fees given the fact that wife had already become a very wealthy woman as a result of the marital property distribution.

By statute, the court may require the husband or wife to pay suit money or attorney fees to enable the spouse to conduct and to litigate the case.  After the case has been litigated though, the award of attorney fees become more complex with more variable.

The base inquiry for the court is:

1. Whether to award any fees, and
2. To whom and in what amount.

On the first prong, the court considers the motivation and behavior of the litigants. Any unnecessary litigation, burden or bad faith.  If there has been bad faith or egregious and  unnecessary litigation, the scale tips toward granting fees as a punitive measure.

Here however, the court found neither party had conducted litigation for an improper motive, but that the proceedings were nevertheless:

• Burdensome and oppressive to the wife, and
• Husband had taken hard positions during the litigation, which the Court interpreted as inflexible or unreasonable.

On the issue of the amount of the award, the trial court had considered these factors:

1. The reasonableness of the fees sought by the wife,
2. The quality and nature of the services performed by her attorneys,
3. The necessity for those services,
4. The results obtained, and
5. The respective financial abilities of the parties.

Overall the Court of Appeals affirmed the award of fees given the complexity of the litigation and the respective financial abilities of the parties.

Although the Wife had a significant windfall from award of martial property, proportionally she still did not have an amount close to that earned by the husband from all sources. Her income was estimated to be one-third of the Husband’s income and Husband was awarded over seventy percent (70%) of the marital property, and he had in addition substantial separate property.

The Court here had deviated from the formulaic approach to award of attorney fees to a more equitable distribution approach in comparing various elements to justify award of fees.  The Court motivated by philosophical reasoning specifically expounded:

Absent the possibility of an award of suit money, financial pressures might often coerce inequitable settlements or preclude trial preparation and effective litigation. The financially advantaged, controlling spouse may find litigation a profitable weapon. Faced with the prospect of an assessment of substantial suit money, however, the financially advantaged spouse may instead find settlement a more reasonable alternative.

Clearly the court was still working on balancing equities even after the final decree of divorce was issued.  Generally, award of fees are rare unless there is finding of bath faith or gross inequity.

Refer to our Washington DC Divorce Lawyer page for more details on this subject matter.