Needham, 184 Cal.App.2d, 446, the court states: „Coercion, which includes anything that destroys freedom of choice and compels it to do what is against its will, may be exercised by threats, importunity or some kind of mental coercion.“ Teresa testified that she had argued with her lawyer before the trial and that he only represented her in court because the trial judge did not allow her to retire as a lawyer. It also stated that it was unaware that the above-mentioned amendments had been made to the ownership agreement. She denied that the initials „TT“ were made by her in addition to the amendments. In addition, she never agreed to give up family allowances. Conversely, she explained that she had specifically discussed with her former lawyer the need for a child assistance scheme. Even more troubling, at the divorce hearing of her former lawyer and her husband`s lawyer, she lobbied for her to sign the asset settlement agreement. On the day of the divorce hearing outside the courtroom, the lawyers and parties settled their differences. A former lawyer testified that he made the changes to the printed real estate transaction agreement. The final document contained the changes that the parties had negotiated outside the courtroom. Teresa initiated any change, the former lawyer testified that he witnessed the way she did. In addition, Thomas` divorce attorney in Orange County argues that adding attorneys` and accounting fees and expenses was an abuse of power for the court portion. First, California Civil Code Section 4370 provides that attorneys` fees and expenses for a fee should be awarded only in amounts reasonably necessary for the costs of maintaining or defending the proceedings.
. . .
