In 2023, a California couple began a divorce with competing requests for protection orders; three years later, a court overturned the husband’s $39,000 legal-fee award because he filed too late

The appeals court ruled that the husband had filed his legal-fee request too late. (AI image)

A California man who was awarded $39,000 in legal fees from his wife during their divorce proceedings will no longer receive the money after an appeals court found on Wednesday that he had waited too long to make the claim.The couple’s dispute began in 2023, when the husband filed for divorce and sought a restraining order against his wife. She later asked the court for a similar order against him. Although the two settled their dispute over the restraining orders in January 2024, the husband returned to court more than a year later seeking payment for his lawyers. The California Court of Appeal ruled that his request had come too late and overturned the award.According to the judgment, the case involved a man identified in court documents as A O and his wife, Alina Vologodskaya. When A O started the divorce proceedings, he also wanted his wife to pay some or all of his legal expenses. Vologodskaya responded by seeking protection from him and asking for financial support.By January 2024, both sides were preparing to argue their cases in court. A O wanted a restraining order lasting five years, while his wife had asked for one lasting three years. However, instead of going ahead with the planned hearing, they reached an agreement.They settled their competing requests for protection and made arrangements for financial support. But one important matter was missing: neither side said what should happen to the money spent on lawyers. That omission later became central to the dispute over the $39,000 award.

What happened when the couple settled their dispute?

Under the settlement, Vologodskaya agreed to a one-year restraining order protecting her husband. She also acknowledged committing at least one act of domestic abuse that justified the order and withdrew her own request for protection.The couple also agreed on how some of their expenses would be handled while the divorce continued. A O would pay temporary spousal support, while Vologodskaya would pay her own rent and monthly car instalments.They further agreed that each would receive $50,000 in advance from their shared marital property. Any questions about future bonuses or additional income affecting support payments could be decided by the court later.The settlement was recorded in court, and the written orders were filed. However, the documents did not specifically leave the question of legal fees open for another hearing. In fact, one document indicated that no decision on legal fees was applicable, while the relevant space in another was left empty. For more than a year, there was no further decision on the husband’s request for legal expenses.

Husband returns to court seeking over $75,000

In April 2025, A.O. asked the court to make Vologodskaya pay $75,476 towards his legal expenses.His argument was that he had succeeded in obtaining protection from his wife and had also defended himself against her attempt to secure a restraining order. He believed these outcomes entitled him to recover the money spent on lawyers.Vologodskaya challenged the demand, but her objection was not about how much he had spent. She argued that he had missed the deadline for asking the court to order payment.Despite her objection, the lower court ruled in the husband’s favour. After hearing arguments in October and December 2025, it awarded him $39,000 in February 2026.The wife then appealed, bringing the question of whether the husband had filed his claim on time before a higher court.

Why did the appeals court reject the husband’s claim?

The California Court of Appeal examined the rules governing when a person can ask for legal fees after a court decision. Under the rule applicable to this case, such a request had to be made within the period allowed for appealing the restraining order decision. That period could extend to a maximum of 180 days.For A O, the problem was the gap between the original court order and his later application. The restraining order had been issued in February 2024, but he did not seek the $75,476 until April 2025, roughly 14 months later.The husband pointed out that he had requested legal fees at the beginning of the case and that the earlier court documents contained general wording allowing other matters to be considered later.But the appeals court found a difference between mentioning legal fees in an earlier application and specifically keeping that issue open after a settlement.The judges observed that the couple had clearly agreed to leave certain financial questions for future consideration. They had not done the same for legal fees, even though both had lawyers when the agreement was reached.A O also maintained that the deadline should not apply while the divorce proceedings remained unfinished. The appeals court rejected this argument because the restraining order dispute had already been resolved, regardless of whether the marriage had been legally dissolved.He also wanted the lower court to consider extending the deadline. However, the judges found that he had not raised that request when the lower court was hearing the matter.The appeals court thus concluded that the husband had submitted his legal-fee request after the permitted period and that the lower court should not have awarded him the money.It therefore cancelled the February 23 order directing Vologodskaya to pay $39,000. The judges also decided that each side would pay its own expenses arising from the appeal.