Lessons Learned from Two Successful Family Code Section 271 Appeals
From our vantage point as appellate counsel, it seems that family law attorneys and litigants are constantly seeking sanctions under Family Code section 271. Although trial courts are afforded considerable latitude in issuing sanctions under this section—the standard of review is quite deferential—the trial court’s discretion is not limitless. Two cases handled here at Decker Law illustrate the limitations of a trial court’s ability to order sanctions.
Featherstone v. Martinez (2022) 86 Cal. App. 5th 775
In Featherstone, we represented a family law attorney and her client who were sanctioned $20,000 collectively ($10,000 each) under Family Code section 271. The trial court provided several supposed “reasons” why sanctions were appropriate, including the fact that appellants had attempted to disqualify the judge for being biased. The trial court also sanctioned the client for having a “controlling” and “entitled” mindset.
As to the attorney, the Court of Appeal said the sanctions award is “obviously wrong: Section 271 permits imposing sanctions only on a party, not a party’s attorney.”
As for the client, the Court of Appeal found that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering sanctions. For one, a party can be sanctioned for their conduct, not their mindset. “The [trial] court was principally sanctioning Mother not for taking actions that frustrated settlement efforts but for taking litigation positions with which the court disagreed. That is improper.”
The appellate court also found that the motion to disqualify was not frivolous. “One cannot read this appellate record without coming away with the impression that the family court was just miffed about being accused of bias,” the Featherstone court remarked. “On a personal level, that is understandable. But exercise of the judicial function requires more, and the mere accusation of bias here is not reason for a five-figure sanction—or any sanction, for that matter.”
Having not engaged in any conduct that could be deemed remotely frivolous, it was an abuse of discretion to order sanctions against the client. The Court of Appeal reversed the sanctions award in its entirety.
In re Marriage of Thompson (Sep. 24, 2024, No. B332150) [2024 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 6016]
In Thompson, the trial court—incidentally, the same trial court from Featherstone—sanctioned a litigant $10,000 based upon what it felt was “appropriate,” “guessing” the attorney fees incurred to date “are north of 100,000 [dollars] start to finish.” The Court of Appeal found the trial court’s method of “guessing” to be improper, as it reversed the award of sanctions in its entirety.
The Thompson court reaffirmed that sanctions awarded under Family Code section 271 must be “tethered to attorney fees and costs.” In other words, there must be some connection between a sanctions award and attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of or related to the allegedly sanctionable conduct.
Takeaways
Attorneys cannot be sanctioned under Family Code section 271.
The conduct must be frivolous—objectively unreasonable—to warrant sanctions under Family Code section 271.
Sanctions under Family Code section 271 must be tethered to attorneys’ fees.
Disclaimer: The information on this website is provided for informational purposes only; it should not be construed as legal advice for any particular person, case, or circumstance. Those seeking legal advice should consult an attorney. Nothing on this website is intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Such a relationship is formed only upon executing a written fee agreement with the firm.