California
Appeals
Standard of Review
Sanctions Order
 

Standard of Review-Sanctions order-Abused of Discretion-Marr. of Falcone & Fyke

7.      Imposing an Unreasonable Burden

Family Code section 271, subdivision (a) provides, “Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the court may base an award of attorney’s fees and costs on the extent to which the conduct of each party or attorney furthers or frustrates the policy of the law to promote settlement of litigation and, where possible, to reduce the cost of litigation by encouraging cooperation between the parties and attorneys.  An award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to this section is in the nature of a sanction.  In making an award pursuant to this section, the court shall take into consideration all evidence concerning the parties’ incomes, assets, and liabilities.  The court shall not impose a sanction pursuant to this section that imposes an unreasonable financial burden on the party against whom the sanction is imposed.  In order to obtain an award under this section, the party requesting an award of attorney’s fees and costs is not required to demonstrate any financial need for the award.”  The policy of the law is to promote settlement and to encourage cooperation which will reduce the cost of litigation.  (In re Marriage of Quay (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 961, 970.)  But the sanction must be scaled to the payor’s ability to pay and must be made in light of both parties’ financial circumstances.  (In re Marriage of Norton (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 53, 59-60.) 

Kathey maintains that the court failed to consider the parties’ respective financial positions when it imposed the sanctions under Family Code section 271 such that the resulting order imposes an unreasonable burden upon her.  In reviewing the sanction order, we indulge all reasonable inferences to uphold it.  “We will not interfere with the order for sanctions unless the trial court abused its broad discretion in making it.”  (In re Marriage of Petropoulos (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 161, 177.) 

In granting the Family Code section 271 motion, the court found that, notwithstanding her repeated protestations to the contrary, Kathey “has a great deal of legal knowledge.”  Nevertheless, “[s]he insists on pursuing her way even when it is not appropriate.  After notice and warning from the Court that she would not be successful in her motion, she persisted in proceedings. . . .  The court finds, after considering the financial circumstances of the parties and their conduct, that an award of sanctions against [Kathey] is warranted.  The court awards counsel for [Richard] the sum of $17,500 . . . .”  The award was to be “secured by a lien against the Saratoga property and shall bear interest at 10 % simple interest until paid in full.”

The trial court plainly did not disregard evidence of Kathey’s ability to pay the sanctions.  Indeed, the court expressly stated that it considered the financial circumstances of the parties and also specified that the award was to be secured by the “Saratoga property.”  The Saratoga property was a significant asset, the sale of which would provide Kathey with more than adequate resources to satisfy the sanction order.  The record, therefore, does not show that the award imposed an unreasonable burden. 

eBook Master Table of Contents   
Standard of Review-Table of Contents
Briefs-Legal Argument-Table of Contents