Ex-Wife Did Not Show Sanctions Were An Abuse of Discretion, With No “Double Dipping” Based on Prior Discovery Sanctions.
Family Code section 271 sanctions, oftentimes attorney’s fees for resolution-thwarting, obstructionist conduct by a family law litigant, are generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Marriage of Bell, Case No. D064293 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Sept. 10, 2014) (unpublished) demonstrates the deference given to such awards assessed by a trial judge in a unique position by having presided over a contentious dissolution proceeding.
In this particular case, ex-wife was hit with $70,000 in 271 sanctions in a disso case involving a 16-year marriage producing 2 children. Wife went through three attorneys, while husband kept to the same one is the case. Husband had expended $217,126.08 in fees and requested $112,500 as “needs based” fees. Instead, the trial court assessed the $70,000 in 271 sanctions based on an alternative request from husband.
The record showed this award was no abuse of discretion based on these facts, among others: (1) wife took out $75,000 of community assets on the date of dissolution; (2) she was sanctioned for prolonging things as a result of discovery violations/nondisclosure to a special master; and (3) she was two hours late to one phase of the case, the property trial, and presented voluminous exhibits at that phase. Under these circumstances, the appellate court saw no reason to reverse, also rejecting the argument that the 271 sanctions constituted “double dipping” given that there were prior discovery sanctions against wife (and especially given that this was only one of the factors justifying the 271 award).