Appellate Court Corrects Error, Reducing $10,000 Award Down to $7,500, Finding Ex-Husband Forfeited Most Claims on Appeal.
This next opinion again shows that appellate practice is a specialty. An in pro per litigant or lawyer not skilled in appellate practice can find himself/herself forfeiting or waiving challenges because of the failure to present arguments properly or develop an adequate record for appellate review.
In Marriage of Vojnovic, Case No. H033396 (6th Dist. Dec. 21, 2010) (unpublished), a family law judge awarded $10,000 in sanctions against ex-husband under Family Code section 271.
Although scaling back the award to $7,500 based on a clerical error, the appellate court found husband had forfeited most claims on appeal by failing to support points with reasoned argument and legal authority. In such cases, appellate courts may treat such undeveloped points as waived, which the reviewing court did here even though husband was in pro per (with many decisions holding that in pro per litigants are entitled to no greater consideration that other litigants/attorneys). (EnPalm, LLC v. Teitler, 162 Cal.App.4th 770, 775 (2008) [waiver]; Nwosu v. Uba, 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247 (2004) [in pro per litigants must follow correct rules of procedure].)
Beyond that, however, the record showed no abuse of discretion in awarding sanctions, because husband insisted on his settlement terms, used bait and switch settlement tactics, and was recalcitrant/evasive during the discovery process. The $7,500 was found to be proper.