However, Open Question Remains—Need to File Motion for Further Response/Evidentiary Preclusion As Predicate—Not Decided.
Marriage of Crawford, Case No. A138156 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 28, 2014) (unpublished) affirmed a trial court’s denial of awarding sanctions against an ex-husband under Family Code section 2107, which allows a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees if it decides there is noncompliance with asset/liability disclosure requirements in the family arena. Noncontroversial, based on the record below.
However, it did highlight an open issue which will have to be addressed at some point: Does a litigant claiming 2107 sanctions first have to file a motion for further response or for preclusion of evidence against the transgressing party in order to obtain sanctions? Apparently, an open issue according to the appellate court, citing Marriage of Fong, 193 Cal.App.4th 278, 289-290 (2011). We guess this issue will not remain open for time immemorial.