CALIFORNIA FAMILY LAW
...Attorney Fees
......Sanctions
.........Against Party
............Impermissible
 14 Cards On This Topic:
  • Not every violation of a procedural rule is properly sanctionable.
  • Sanctions may not be summarily imposed; due process demands more.
  • "[S]ummary imposition of attorney fees as sanctions is not consistent with due process procedural protections."
  • Only “complying party” is entitled to award of sanctions pursuant to FC 2107 (c).
  • If party prevails on appeal and order reversed, sanctions associated with that order fall too.
  • Sanctions cannot be requested in closing argument; party must have proper notice and opportunity to be heard.
  • H could not be sanctioned for pursuing a legal position that turned out to be unmeritorious, but on which there was controlling no legal authority.
  • H could not be sanctioned for "obstreperous conduct" for attempting to preserve his relationship with his children by preventing W’s move away.
  • Court of Appeal heartily disapproves of knee-jerk requests for sanctions.
  • Aggressive position in appellate process where stakes are very high and position not entirely without support in the law does not warrant sanctions.
  • Court had no permissible basis to sanction H for frustrating earlier possible settlement nor to require attorney fee order be paid all at once.
  • Court may not impose sanctions on client for violation of local rule without establishing client responsible.
  • Court cannot order needy party to pay fees to nonneedy party as sanction for inconvenience.
  • Cases holding it is impermissible to sanction client for attorney's violation of local rules.


    •