A California appellate court has wiped out a $39,000 attorney-fee award that a San Mateo County judge handed down in a contentious divorce case, ruling that the husband waited far too long to ask for the money. The decision, filed Oct. 28, 2026, and certified for publication, means the fee order is gone — not because the underlying restraining order was wrong, but because the clock had already run out.
A Restraining Order Settled, Then a Fee Fight Months Later
The case, In re Marriage of A.O. and Vologodskaya, traces back to August 2023, when the husband, identified in court records as A.O., filed for divorce and sought both a restraining order and attorney fees. According to the California Court of Appeal opinion, reproduced by Justia, the wife, Vologodskaya, had also requested her own restraining order, but the two competing requests were settled on the record in January 2024. Under that settlement, the parties agreed to a one-year restraining order protecting A.O., and Vologodskaya admitted she “committed one or more acts of domestic abuse such that the issuance of a restraining order is warranted,” while her own request was dismissed.
The parties did not mention attorney fees when reciting their settlement agreement; later findings and order stated fees were “Not applicable,” while the restraining-order form's fee section was left blank. The parties reserved jurisdiction only over future bonus or additional income — not fees, per the opinion. A.O. did not move for fees until April 2025, when he sought $75,476 under Family Code section 6344, a statute that lets a prevailing petitioner request fees and costs, while limiting a prevailing respondent's ability to collect them to cases where the request was frivolous or was solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or cause unnecessary delay. San Mateo County Superior Court ultimately ordered Vologodskaya to pay $39,000 in February 2026.
Appeals Court: The Request Came 14 Months Too Late
The Court of Appeal didn't weigh in on whether the fees were justified on the merits. Instead, it focused entirely on timing. The opinion states plainly that A.O. “waited until April 2025 — 14 months after the court issued a restraining order” — to file his motion, and that the delay was fatal under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1702, which requires a statutory attorney-fee motion for services through judgment to be filed within the same window allowed for a notice of appeal.
The court held that rule 3.1702 applies to requests for fees under section 6344, rejecting the argument that the rule didn't apply while the broader dissolution case was still pending. Because a domestic violence restraining order is appealable as an injunction, and because an appeal from an order granting or denying such a restraining order must be filed within no more than 180 days, the court found A.O.'s request missed its window by months. The opinion notes rule 3.1702 has no carve-out for family law cases.
Court Rejects Husband's Preservation Argument
A.O. had argued his fee claim was effectively preserved because he'd asked for fees in his original petition and because the settlement order generally reserved other issues for later. The appellate panel wasn't persuaded, rejecting that argument and noting the parties never actually addressed attorney fees or reserved jurisdiction to award them in the settlement itself. The court also said the competing restraining order requests were final once settled in January 2024, and it declined to send the case back to the trial court to consider whether good cause existed to extend the filing deadline — largely because A.O. never raised that extension argument in the trial court in the first place.
With the fee award reversed, the Court of Appeal — the First Appellate District, Division Three — ordered each side to bear its own costs on appeal. The published opinion may now be cited as precedent in other California cases involving fee requests tied to domestic violence restraining orders, though the ruling itself does not revisit or decide the underlying restraining order requests the parties settled back in 2024.
Why the Ruling Is Getting Attention
A press release on the El Paso Times highlights commentary from California Family Law Firm, APC, an Irvine-based practice handling divorce, child custody, spousal support and domestic violence restraining order matters, including cases in Orange County. The firm describes the legal information in its release as general public awareness content rather than legal advice, and lists attorney Jeffrey Wittliff as a contact point for the practice.
For family law practitioners statewide, the opinion is a reminder that even strong grounds for an attorney-fee award can evaporate if the paperwork misses the clock. The full text of the ruling, including the court's reasoning on rule 3.1702 and its interaction with Family Code section 6344, is available through the California Court of Appeal's official opinion.
