Because Ex-Husband Did Timely Pay An Earlier Discovery Sanctions, 271 Sanctions Order Had To Be Revisited Based On Lower Court Error On This Discrete Issue.
Family Code section 271 sanctions can be steep. This is a statutory provision that allows considerable leeway to a lower court to impose sanctions in a dissolution proceeding against a litigant not trying to settle the matter or running up the expenses in the case. Ex-husband in Marriage of Thompson, Case No. A164210 (1st Dist., Div. 1 Nov. 7, 2023) (unpublished) got hit with an adverse section 271 sanctions award of $300,000. He raised two arguments on appeal: (1) live testimony was required at the 271 sanctions hearing, a request denied by the lower court; and (2) the lower court based its ruling, partially, on his failure to pay a discovery sanctions award which indeed was timely paid.
Appellant lost argument #1, but he did obtain a reversal and remand on argument #2.
With respect to the live testimony issue, 271 sanctions are not a substantive matter requiring live testimony under statutory or CRC provisions. Although a lower court can in its discretion order live testimony, it no abuse of discretion for the trial judge in this case to determine that the documentary evidence and credibility inferences to be drawn therefrom could allow for a proper adjudication of the sanctions issue.
But the rub in this matter was an undisputed one: appellant timely did pay the discovery sanctions. Given that this occurred, a reversal was required to revisit whether that mistake would lead to a different 271 sanctions award in the gestalt of things.
Comments