Self-Represented Ex-Husband Learned The Hard Way That Uncooperative Conduct, Unduly Delaying Resolution, And Refusal To Participate In RFO Hearing Can Be Incredibly Costly – And This Was On Top Of $13,200 In Sanctions Already Issued Against Him Earlier In This Case.
In Marriage of Ehirim, Case No. E072397 (4th Dist., Div. 2 September 14, 2020) (unpublished), husband and wife with no minor children were involved in a post-judgment dispute related to some community investment account balances held in wife’s name, and community credit card debt paid after separation by wife with her separate property funds. The investment accounts and credit card debt had not been adjudicated in the earlier judgment – with the trial court reserving jurisdiction to determine the balance of those investments, as well as community bank accounts and debts.
Self-represented husband was uncooperative in resolving the investment/credit card issues with wife. As a result, both parties filed requests for orders related to the investment/credit card issues. Husband then subpoenaed credit card companies and other financial institutions, where wife held accounts, seeking overly broad and irrelevant information – including requests for items such as signature cards – for dates extending well beyond the parties’ date of separation. Additionally, husband subpoenaed wife’s employer seeking overly broad and irrelevant information that extended well beyond the date of separation. When husband refused to scale back the scope of his subpoenas, wife successfully moved to quash or limit the subpoenas to relevant time frames and to information relevant to the parties’ dispute. Afterward, the trial court awarded wife $3,892.50 in fees and costs pursuant to Code Civ. Proc., § 1987.2(a). Section 1987.2(a) provides the trial court with the discretion to award reasonably incurred expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, to a party prevailing in a motion to quash.
When trial on the remaining investment accounts and credit card debt came about, husband refused to participate and walked out. Only wife testified and provided documentation. After determining community division of the investment accounts, offsets from the paid community credit card debt and other unpaid equalization payments from husband to wife, the trial court issued $10,000 in Family Code § 271 sanctions against husband for his conduct – conduct which frustrated the policy of the law promoting settlement and reducing the cost of litigation. The trial court additionally ordered husband to pay $19,993 of wife’s attorney fees “as and for additional sanctions” pursuant to Family Code §§ 271 and 2030. These awards were on top of $13,200 in unpaid sanctions previously issued against husband in this case.
The 4/2 DCA found no abuse of discretion and affirmed – concluding the trial court’s factual findings and awards of fees/costs and issuance of sanctions were amply supported by the record.