Ex-Husband Was Contentious And Ex-Wife Had Already Contributed Significant Moneys To Level The Playing Field.
With respect to Family Code section 271 sanctions, equities often determine who wins or loses on these requests. Marriage of Madigan, Case No. G052559 (4th Dist., Div. 3 Sept. 20, 2017) (unpublished) illustrates this well, a 3-0 panel decision authored by Acting Presiding Justice Moore.
In this one, ex-wife certainly had better financial resources than ex-husband, based on a thirteen marriage producing three minor children. However, both sides collectively spent $600,000 in divorce attorney’s fees, with ex-wife previously contributing $90,500 toward some of ex-husband’s attorney’s fees. Eventually, the family law judge denied ex-husband’s and ex-wife’s requests for sanctions under Family Code section 271. Ex-wife’s conduct did not meet the sanctions standard; while ex-husband’s conduct did, his financial condition did not allow for an award (given that financial conditions are considered in a 271 sanctions award). Ex-husband appealed the sanctions denial.
The 4/3 DCA affirmed. Even though ex-husband had much less personal resources, his conduct was found to have shown “inflexibility and confrontation”, at odds with granting a 271 sanctions award in his favor. One further reason supporting a sanctions denial was ex-wife’s earlier significant contribution to his fees (with the trial judge believing a big chunk of this being enough to resolve the entire dissolution proceeding if handled correctly).