California Court Overturns Husband's $39,000 Legal Fee Award Filed Too Late

A California appeals court has overturned a lower court decision that awarded a husband $39,000 in legal fees from his wife, ruling that the request was filed well past the permissible deadline. According to reported court documents, the case involves a couple identified as A O and Alina Vologodskaya.

Background of the Dispute

The legal proceedings began in 2023 when the husband filed for divorce and sought a restraining order against his wife, who subsequently requested a similar protective order against him. In January 2024, before a scheduled hearing, the couple reached an agreement to resolve their competing protection requests and arranged certain financial matters.

Key elements of the settlement included:

• Vologodskaya agreeing to a one-year restraining order protecting her husband and acknowledging conduct justifying the order.
• Arrangements for temporary spousal support, shared property advances, and living expenses.
• The formal recording of the agreement without specific provisions leaving the issue of legal fees open for future determination.

The Legal Fee Challenge

More than a year after the settlement, in April 2025, A O petitioned the court to order his wife to pay over $75,000 for his legal expenses, arguing his success in the restraining order matters entitled him to reimbursement. Although Vologodskaya objected on procedural timeliness grounds, a lower court ruled in the husband's favor in February 2026, awarding him $39,000.

Upon appeal, the California Court of Appeal determined that the request violated applicable rules requiring such motions to be filed within the timeframe allowed for appealing the restraining order decision, which can extend up to 180 days. Because the restraining order was issued in February 2024 and the formal request for fees was not made until April 2025—approximately 14 months later—the appeals court concluded the filing was untimely. Consequently, the judges cancelled the $39,000 award and ruled that each party will bear its own appeal expenses.