California Court of Appeal Reverses Family Code Section 271 Sanctions Orders

Decker Law Obtains Reversal of $50,000 Sanctions Award in Family Law Appeal

The California Court of Appeal recently reversed a family court's order imposing $50,000 in Family Code section 271 sanctions and also reversed an order denying the opposing party's request for sanctions. The decision provides important guidance regarding the purpose of Section 271 sanctions, the requirement that sanctions be tied to attorney's fees and costs, and the procedural rules governing sanctions requests in family law proceedings.

Decker Law represented the appellant and successfully obtained reversal of both orders.

Background of the Case

The parties were involved in a long-running marital dissolution proceeding involving child support and spousal support issues. After both parties experienced employment changes, each sought modifications to existing support orders.

During the proceedings, disputes arose concerning the disclosure of severance payments received by one party following a layoff. The opposing party alleged that the severance compensation had not been properly disclosed and sought Family Code section 271 sanctions.

The family court ultimately found the nondisclosure sanctionable and imposed $50,000 in sanctions. The court also denied the opposing party's own request for Section 271 sanctions based solely on procedural grounds.

Both rulings were challenged on appeal.

The Legal Issues

The appeal presented two separate questions.

First, could the family court impose a $50,000 sanction without identifying evidence showing that the amount was tied to attorney's fees and costs incurred as a result of the sanctionable conduct?

Second, did the trial court correctly deny a sanctions request solely because it was raised in a responsive declaration rather than a separately filed motion?

The Court of Appeal answered both questions in favor of reversal.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

The $50,000 Sanctions Award Could Not Stand

The Court of Appeal agreed that the family court had discretion to determine whether the conduct at issue was sanctionable under Family Code section 271. The trial court expressly found the sanctioned party was not credible and concluded that her conduct frustrated the policies underlying the statute. The Court of Appeal declined to disturb those factual findings.

However, the appellate court found a separate problem with the amount of the sanctions award.

Family Code section 271 authorizes sanctions in the form of attorney's fees and costs. As a result, sanctions must be tethered to attorney's fees and costs incurred or anticipated because of the offending conduct.

The Court of Appeal observed that the party seeking sanctions presented little evidence explaining how the requested $50,000 figure related to attorney's fees and costs. The record contained no meaningful explanation for the amount selected, and the trial court's ruling likewise failed to identify how the sanction was calculated.

Because the appellate court could not determine from the record whether the award was properly tied to attorney's fees and costs, it reversed the sanctions amount and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

The Trial Court Also Erred in Denying the Opposing Party's Sanctions Request

The Court of Appeal also reversed the denial of the appellant's own sanctions request.

The family court had denied that request solely because it was asserted in a responsive declaration rather than through a separate motion. The Court of Appeal concluded that this reasoning was legally incorrect. Under existing California authority, a request for Family Code section 271 sanctions is not necessarily barred simply because it is raised in responsive pleadings.

The appellate court declined to decide whether sanctions ultimately should be awarded. Instead, it held that the request must be considered on its merits rather than rejected on an incorrect procedural ground.

Why This Decision Matters

Family Code section 271 is one of the most frequently invoked sanctions statutes in California family law.

The statute is designed to encourage cooperation, promote settlement, and discourage conduct that unnecessarily increases the cost of litigation. Unlike some sanctions provisions, Section 271 does not require proof of bad faith.

This decision highlights an important limitation on the statute: while courts possess broad discretion to determine whether conduct is sanctionable, the amount awarded must still bear a reasonable relationship to attorney's fees and costs. Trial courts cannot simply select a sanctions figure without a record demonstrating how the amount was determined.

The decision also serves as a reminder that courts must evaluate sanctions requests under the correct procedural standards.

Contact Decker Law

Decker Law represents clients throughout California in family law appeals, sanctions appeals, child support appeals, spousal support appeals, and other complex appellate matters. If you are considering an appeal involving Family Code section 271 sanctions or another family court ruling, contact Decker Law to discuss your appellate options.