Rather, Laches Govern Whether the Section 271 Sanctions Motions Were Timely.
George v. Shams-Shirazi, Case No. A155158 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Feb. 11, 2020) (published) dealt with a $13,000 “sanctions” award against a litigant under Family Code section 271, which allows a family law judge great latitude to award attorney’s fees and costs against a litigant who does not attempt to move the family law case to a resolution or files needless motions.
Well, the losing party lobbed procedural argument to reverse the award. The basic argument was that the section 271 sanctions motion was filed too late, because it was “lock stepped” into civil court deadlines for filing fees motion. Wrong. The problem was that this was a family court case and one involving postjudgment sanctions fees which triggered a different deadline in family law cases.
So, what is the rule? Laches, said the appellate court. “ . . . postjudgment requests for statutory attorney fees can be denied under the equitable principles of laches if the delay in filing unfairly prejudices the other party,” citing Crespin v. Shewry, 125 Cal.App.4th 259, 271-272 (2004). Under the circumstances of this case, laches did not apply such that the sanctions award was affirmed based the particular circumstances of this case. It will be interesting to see if legal practitioners try to stretch this case beyond its narrow facts. Who knows!