Can a spouse sitting on millions of dollars ask the other side to help cover attorney fees? In September 2026, the First District Court of Appeal made clear that having substantial wealth, on its own, does not disqualify a spouse from a need-based fee award under Family Code Section 2030 and that a trial court cannot simply point to a large bank balance and call it a day, they must make specific findings on record. (In re Marriage of Trousset & Kelley, 122 Cal. App. 5th 1300, 1309 (2026).
The Backstory
The parties in this case divorced after a 16-year marriage. Husband is an investment banker and the principal of an investment group; Wife, a former CPA, had stepped away from her career when the couple’s children were born. Their 2023 marital settlement agreement divided real property and assets worth tens of millions of dollars and included a spousal support buyout and an equalizing payment to Wife. So, she objectively has substantial access to assets and is considered wealthy.
As often happens, the fights did not end at the judgment. The parties clashed over custody, child support, and how to split “add-on” expenses like private school tuition and the children’s therapy. As such, Wife asked the court to order post-judgment-need-based attorney fees under Family Code Section 2030.
The trial court denied the request. It court found that while Husband had more liquid assets, Wife had not shown “need” because she herself held over $10 million in liquid assets. The court also faulted both sides for overlitigating the case and denied the request in full.
What Section 2030 Actually Requires
California’s need-based fee statute is not a loose, gut-feel inquiry. When a spouse requests fees, the trial court must make three express findings: (1) whether a fee award is appropriate; (2) whether there is a disparity in the parties’ access to funds to retain counsel; and (3) whether one party is able to pay for both parties’ representation. If those findings show a disparity in access and an ability to pay, the court shall award fees. These findings have to be stated in writing or on the record. A court that skips them commits legal error
Where the Trial Court Went Wrong
The Court of Appeal found that the family court never made the required findings. It never expressly addressed whether a disparity in access to funds existed, and it said nothing at all about whether Husband could pay for both sides’ representation.
The court’s most useful observation is a distinction that is easy to blur: a disparity in assets is not the same as a disparity in access to funds to hire a lawyer. The family court found Husband had more liquid assets but then pivoted to say Wife had no “need” because of her own $10 million which could be read as finding no access disparity at all. That ambiguity, the appellate court held, was exactly the problem since the record showed that Husband had substantial income and a net worth of roughly $22.5 million, it was reasonably probable the trial court would have found he could pay for both sides had it made the finding. Given that Wife was unemployed while Husband still incurred substantial income from his work, the court could have found a disparity in access to the funds needed to retain counsel, notwithstanding Wife’s considerable assets.
The Outcome: The Court of Appeals Reversed
The court of appeals reversed and remanded so that the trial court could make express findings as to 1) whether a fee award is appropriate; (2) whether there is a disparity in the parties’ access to funds to retain counsel; and (3) whether one party is able to pay for both parties’ representation.