pay her legal fees ?

[the brick]

i served my wife today , and she said she will contest it and i will have to pay her legal fees ! , is this possible that i will have to pay her fees ? when i my self cant afford a lawyer

[sufferer]

If one party is being totaly unreasonable then the Judge may order costs for resonable party.My ex wanted a very fair game (Kids to me but no child support,I should rent and he wanted the house for himself LOL) so he paid almost 6200 to my lawyer to cover my legal costs

[selfrep]

I would not concern myself with that at this point. That will be a long way down the road and only if you are not able to come to an agreement. If you come to an agreement then parties bear own costs. She obviously at this point as more than likely than yourself does not realize how this game is played. Hopefully, and best alternative is to come to a settlement sooner rather than later. This way costs can be minimized on both sides.

[FL_Needs_To_Change]

A general rule of thumb would be this, (but not always, if the case is complex this changes).

If the parties have submitted a claim to resolve say 8 issues, both parties submit their reasons for having things done their way etc.

If the final judgment on say 6 of the issues are awarded in one parties favour then it is possible for that party to seek costs for having been successful on the majority of the issues. This basically means that this party was more reasonable in their claims then the non successful party. Therefore the courts feel that had both parties been reasonable they would both have come to the same conclusion not requiring court intervention. Thus the award of costs, to basically deter unreasonable claims.

Of course this is not always the case.

[About_Time]

I don't think it has to be the case that just because one loses a particular motion or request that they were neccessarily unreasonable for raising it. I mean, if I make a motion to force my ex to wear a dunce cap as a part of our settlement, then clearly she shouldn't have to pay for the legal costs to defend against that. If, however, she is looking for $800/mth in SS and I put forth a reasonable argument for $500/mth which the court ultimately rejects, is it fair that I should pay her costs? I would argue no. People can both be reasonable but come to different conclusions.

How much common sense is put into determining what is reasonable to put before the courts? Is it simply a tally of win-loss?

[FL_Needs_To_Change]

Originally Posted by About_Time

How much common sense is put into determining what is reasonable to put before the courts? Is it simply a tally of win-loss?

It's not a tally per say.
It's, as you stated, reasonability.
In your example, the ex wanting $800, vs your counter offer of $500, and the order is set at $500. I think that this is a stale mate type thing, both reasonable offers, (background unknown) one is just more reasonable then the other, “in the eyes of the court” based on evidence and presentation of facts etc.

This is like asking what will it cost to litigate an issue, there are no set rules for guarantying the result.
There is also the "judge" factor.
One judge may see all issues raised as reasonable where another may feel that a party is just wasting time or trying to side step responsibilities thereby awarding costs to the “reasonable” party for having to deal with the issues through court “unnecessarily”.
I think the only way that you may be able to get a "feel" for how awards of costs are determined is by doing some case searching on similar issues that you are dealing with, review the history of the parties, see where there sit in relation to each other, are they similar or both as far to the left and right of a pendulum that they can be, and go to the bottom under costs, and see what was awarded.
I'm sure after skimming half a dozen cases you'll have a feel for when costs are awarded and why.
Sorry I couldn't be more defined on this

[FL_Needs_To_Change]

This are a couple law firms take on award of costs.

On a motion or at trial, if you are successful, the judge may award costs to you. Similarly, if you are not successful, you may have to pay your former partner's legal costs.

However, often a judge will not award costs, especially in contested child custody cases. As well, the costs award is not intended to be a total repayment of your legal costs, but rather a contribution to your legal costs. Normally, costs awards will cover between 1/3 to 2/3 of your legal costs.

You can also make an "offer to settle." If you offer to your former partner to settle the case, and you do better on the motion or trial, your award of costs will be increased.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Costs" ordered by a court at the end of a motion or trial are the court's way of expressing approval or disapproval of one party or the other's conduct of the litigation. Costs usually "follow the event", that is, that the winner gets his or her costs, although not always. The costs awarded by a court, except in extremely unusual circumstances do not amount to an indemnity of one's legal costs, but merely a contribution.

Costs are always in the discretion of the court.
The award of costs can be significantly affected by the existence of Offers to Settle. An Offer to Settle is a formal document, but the court will also consider less formal binding offers. Offers are not disclosed to the court until after the court has rendered its decision. If, at the end of the motion or trial, the court is informed of an offer that was less favourable to the successful party than its order, that party can be awarded double costs.

[dovan]

Hi brick,

In our case the ex has to pay $20,000.00 in court costs plus 6& post judgement interest. The reason behind his decision was that she was unreasonable and that our case should have never gone to trial. She was offered a settlement in 2006 of joint custody with our home being the primary residence and later she still did not settle when the Office of the Children's lawyer report recommended that the child live with us and she was to have specified visitations. In some cases the courts are unfair but in other cases they are not, in case we were very lucky we were as reasonable as possible throughout the entire 2.5 yrs we were fighting her in court for sole custody showing the court that we were not the many source of this conflict that brought us to court in the first place. What I am saying is the the trial judge in mandated to know your file no matter how big or small it is and take all factors to consider ordering costs. If you have been reasonable and the other party has not it is more than likely that court cost will not be ordered.

[dadtotheend]

Originally Posted by dovan

Hi brick,

In our case the ex has to pay $20,000.00 in court costs plus 6& post judgement interest. The reason behind his decision was that she was unreasonable and that our case should have never gone to trial.

How much were your legal fees in total and how much of that was for the trial?

[dovan]

The total cost was $45,000.00 and trial was about a third of that