Chris Frederick Fanini v. Ashley Nicole Fanini

1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 3 UNIFIED FAMILY COURT 4

5) 6 CHRIS FREDERICK FANINI,) Case Number: FDI-25-801908) 7 Petitioner) Hearing Date: April 14, 2026) 8 VS.) Hearing Time: 9:00 AM) 9 ASHLEY NICOLE FANINI,) Department: 403) 10 Respondent) Presiding: BOBBY P. LUNA) 11) 12 REQUEST FOR ORDER ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS 13 TENTATIVE RULING 14 Having read and considered the pleadings, declarations, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the 15 Court makes the following findings and orders: 16 A. Procedural History 17 1) The parties are Petitioner Chris Frederick Fanini (Husband) and Respondent Ashley Nicole 18 Fanini (Wife). 19 2) On 1/14/26, Wife filed a Request for Order seeking $150,000 in Family Code section 2030 20 attorney’s fees and costs.

Wife asserts a significant disparity in income and access to funds. Wife 21 states Husband contributed $50,000 to Wife’s initial retainer but has since defaulted on an 22 agreement to replenish her retainer. Wife asserts Husband has the ability to pay based on his 23 ownership of substantial real estate holdings, significant brokerage and liquid assets, and 24 demonstrated access to cash flow. Attached to Wife’s Request for Order is form FL-157 Spousal 25 or Domestic Partner Support Declaration Attachment. 26 3) On 1/14/26, Wife filed a supportive Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 27 4) On 1/14/26, Wife’s attorney filed a declaration substantiating her request for $150,000 in 28 attorney’s fees costs pursuant to Family Code section 2030. 29 5) On 1/14/26, Wife filed an Income and Expense Declaration.

1 6) On 3/18/26, Wife’s attorney filed a d a declaration augmenting her request for $200,000 in 2 attorney’s fees and costs under Family Code section 2030. 3 7) On 3/18/26, Wife filed an updated Income and Expense Declaration. 4 8) On 4/1/26, Husband filed a Responsive Declaration in opposition to Wife’s Request for Order. 5 Husband asserts that the Court should deny Wife’s request because she failed to demonstrate 6 Husband’s ability to pay and that the attorney’s fees and costs are reasonable.

Husband requests 7 the Court only issue an award subject to reallocation should the Court grant Wife’s request 8 against his opposition. Husband states that he has continued to pay all of Wife’s personal 9 expenses and “extravagant discretional spending” since separation. Husband provides a detailed 10 explanation of his finances in support of his position that he does not have the ability to pay. 11 9) On 4/1/26, Husband filed a supportive Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 12 10) On 4/7/26, Wife filed a Reply Declaration reiterating her position.

Wife states that through 13 February 2026, Husband incurred $184,665.15 in attorney’s fees and costs, and he currently has 14 an outstanding balance due of $20,230.49, plus an additional $45,343 in fees and costs through 15 3/29/26. 16 11) On 4/7/26, Wife filed a supportive Memorandum of Points and Authorities. 17 B. Findings and Order 18 1) Wife’s request for $200,000 in Family Code section 2030 attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED 19 subject to reallocation. 20 2) The Court finds an award of attorney's fees and costs is appropriate here because there is a 21 demonstrated – and substantial – disparity between the parties in access to funds to retain or 22 maintain counsel and in the ability to pay for legal representation. 23 3) The Court further finds that Husband has or is reasonably likely to have the ability to pay for 24 legal representation for both parties. 25 4) Finally, the Court finds $200,000 in attorney’s fees and costs is reasonable and necessary based 26 on the facts and equites of this case. 27 5) Husband shall pay $100,000 by 5/14/26 and $100,000 by 6/14/26 directly to counsel for Wife. 28 6) Counsel for Wife shall prepare the Findings and Order After Hearing. 29