Ex-Wife Not Give Proper Due Process Opportunity to Oppose.
We knew this one was a reversal from the first few sentences–“Summary proceedings are common in family law cases. Nevertheless, however certain a court may be that a party or an attorney in a family law proceeding deserves sanctions, it must keep in mind an immutable principle that cuts cross all areas of the law: sanctions may not be summarily imposed. Due process demands more.”
In Marriage of Duris and Urbany, Case No. B222002 (2d Dist., Div. 6 March 14, 2011) (certified for publication), without prior notice at a child support modification hearing in which no sanctions request was checked in any Judicial Council form, the lower court assessed $10,000 in sanctions against ex-wife and in favor of husband for unnecessary activity by wife’s ex-attorney (wife was in pro per at the hearing). The sanctions was for “fee sink” activity in the case by the prior attorney causing husband to expend $25,000 in fees. The sanctions were awarded without warning at the child support modification hearing.
The Second District, Division 6 reversed on due process grounds. This case is a primer in this area, indicating reversal was compelled because (1) wife was given no notice sanctions would be imposed at the hearing, (2) the sanctions were summarily imposed at the hearing, giving wife no opportunity to obtain proof from her ex-attorney explaining why sanctions were not warranted or to file opposition papers, and (3) husband did not file any proof to support the request such that the trial court really could not make any meaningful factual findings.
The 3-0 opinion was written by Presiding Justice Gilbert.