Sixth District Follows First District’s Lead As Far As Section 271 Sanctions Limitations. In Marriage of Henley & Jackson, Case No. H043753 (6th Dist. June 29, 2018) (unpublished), a family law judge imposed Family Code section 271 sanctions of $25,000 against husband for his efforts to sell a community asset without notice to wife,
Attorneys Did Seek Sanctions On Behalf Of Wife And Failure To Include Income/Expense Declaration On Appeal Failed To Support Husband’s Financial Burden Argument. In Marriage of Sokol & Avidor, Case No. B280783 (2d Dist., Div. 5 June 20, 2018) (unpublished), husband was ordered to pay a total of $114,522.50 in Family Code section 270
Due Process Violation Was Reason For Reversal. In Marriage of Mehta & Grover, Case No. A146919 (1st Dist., Div. 4 June 19, 2018) (unpublished), a $5,500 discovery sanction against an ex-attorney for wife was reversed on due process grounds. What happened was that before the discovery sanctions motion was decided, attorney was relieved as
Although Notices Of Appeal Are Construed Liberally, The Order Under Appeal Still Must Be Specified With Some Precision. Marriage of Schoenfeld, Case No. B281835 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 18, 2018) (unpublished) is a reminder to appellants that some precision must be made in both the notice of appeal and the appellate civil information
Both Sides Had Paid Or Owed A Cumulative $1.841 Million In Dissolution Proceedings. We are not sure that the appellate court was happy with any of the parties in this case that we now report on. After all, in the dissolution saga, ex-husband had paid attorneys $900,000, still owing $70,000, while ex-wife had paid
Ex-Husband Obtained A Lopsided Win, With Both Parties Expending $1 Million In Litigation Costs Since Separation. Attorney’s fees awards in family law setting are extremely discretionary and the end rest of litigation costs for both parties along the way, even with some reimbursement awards allowed, can certainly make destitute or bankrupt any party. This is
But No Appellate Fees Awarded To Ex-Husband. In Marriage of Reed, Case No. G050666 (4th Dist., Div. 3 May 15, 2018) (unpublished), ex-wife was assessed with $20,000 in sanctions under Family Code section 271 and another $5,000 in sanctions for breach of fiduciary duty for failure to disclose the existence of a community property
Also, Disentitlement Doctrine Might Prevent Further Appeals By Ex-Husband. Ex-husband in Marriage of Volovik & Parchin, Case No. B280980 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Apr. 18, 2018) (unpublished) was disgruntled when the lower court imposed a Family Code section 271 sanction award of $30,000 against him, although the result could have been worse given the
Failure to Include Reporter’s Transcript Of Fee Proceedings Was Fatal On Appeal. In a growing trend among California intermediate appellate courts, the 4/3 DCA in Marriage of Watts, Case No. G053304 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 11, 2018) (unpublished), affirmed the denial of Family Code section 217 sanctions to the tune of $37,000 as
Appeal By Ex-Wife Found Frivolous, Which Carried $10,000 More In Sanctions. Marriage of Wintermute and Soltan, Case No. G052397 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Apr. 9, 2018) (unpublished) was a situation where ex-wife appealed a Family Code section 271 sanction of $25,000 after an earlier appellate opinion disagreed with a critical assertion of ex-wife that
