18 results for 'cat:"Family Law" AND cat:"Sanctions"'.
J. Bright finds the trial court erred in its discretion declining to award child support and awarding attorney fees in this dissolution-of-marriage case between a husband and wife. The husband argues he consistently requested child support, and the attorney fees were not properly awarded for contempt. The parties’ financial orders are to be remanded for a new trial concerning all financial issues and to determine the contempt sanctions. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part.
Court: Connecticut Court Of Appeals, Judge: Bright, Filed On: April 15, 2024, Case #: AC45857, Categories: family Law, sanctions, Settlements
J. Harris finds the trial court improperly sanctioned a father for failing to timely disclose a tax return before a child support modification trial. The trial court could have prohibited his use of the tax return in modification proceedings, but went too far in barring him from introducing other income evidence or a rebuttal to the mother's evidence. Vacated.
Court: Utah Court Of Appeals, Judge: Harris, Filed On: April 11, 2024, Case #: 20220534-CA, Categories: family Law, sanctions, Discovery
Per curiam, the Supreme Court of Ohio denies the attorney's motion for supplemental briefing and dismisses the appeal filed on behalf of the husband as frivolous. The divorce court's decision was not a final, appealable order, a determination already made by the appeals court. However, the court declines to sanction the attorney as a vexatious litigator because that punishment has already been imposed in this case.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: 2024-Ohio-1305, Categories: family Law, sanctions, Jurisdiction
Per curiam, the appeals court finds the trial court improperly ordered the ex-husband to perform 50 hours of community service as a sanction in the dissolution of his and the ex-wife's marriage for violating a domestic violence injunction by "shooting and maiming" the ex-wife's pet cats with a pellet gun. The trial court did not follow proper procedure and overstepped its authority by imposing a penal sanction after the ex-wife withdrew her motion to find the ex-husband in criminal contempt and proceeded only to find him in civil contempt. Reversed.
Court: Florida Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: February 21, 2024, Case #: 22-1371, Categories: Civil Procedure, family Law, sanctions
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Gratton finds that the trial court properly denied a mother's motion to revoke a Child Protection Act adjudicatory decree to which she had stipulated since she did not have an absolute right to consent to have her relatives adopt her child. But a $300 sanction for attorney fees incurred by the child's guardian ad litem during a two-day extension granted to the mother was improper because the mother's request for an extension was timely and justified and not intended to delay proceedings. Reversed in part.
Court: Idaho Court Of Appeals, Judge: Gratton, Filed On: January 9, 2024, Case #: 51088, Categories: family Law, sanctions
J. McLaren finds that the lower court properly restricted the mother's parenting time with her three children after finding that she engaged in conduct that seriously endangered the children's mental health. The mother must pay the father's attorneys fees for litigation related to this frivolous appeal. Affirmed.
Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Judge: McLaren, Filed On: December 18, 2023, Case #: 220055, Categories: family Law, sanctions
[Consolidated.] J. Freyre finds the lower court properly granted the mother's motion for significantly more parenting time with the special needs child despite ordering equal parenting time for the other children. Her skills as a registered nurse allow her to provide proper medical treatment and, therefore, the division of parenting time was in the child's best interest. Meanwhile, the father's withholding of marital assets after the court ordered the division of property allowed it to assess prejudgment interest on the mother's portion of several bank accounts, although the case must be remanded to allow for a correction of the date on which the interest began to accrue. Affirmed in part.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Freyre, Filed On: December 7, 2023, Case #: 2023COA116, Categories: family Law, sanctions
Per curiam, the Vermont Supreme Court finds the chief superior judge properly denied the father’s motion to disqualify the trial judge for being biased. The father failed to show a claim of judicial disqualification of the presiding judge. The father also argued that the judge discussed possible sanctions but, the mother has not sought such sanctions. Affirmed.
Court: Vermont Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: November 13, 2023, Case #: 23-AP-131, Categories: family Law, Judiciary, sanctions
J. McBrayer finds the lower court properly divided marital assets, denied spousal support, and applied sanctions in this divorce matter. Having missed a court-ordered discovery deadline, the wife was sanctioned with a limit to the proof she could present. She argues against the sanction and denial of spousal support, but sanctioning is within the lower court's discretion, and the evidence does not support her request for spousal support as she is educated and employable. The wife's argument against the division of marital property is waived, as she failed to include a required table of properties and debts and their valuations in her brief. Affirmed.
Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals, Judge: McBrayer, Filed On: October 27, 2023, Case #: M2020-00473-COA-R3-CV, Categories: family Law, sanctions
J. Stratton finds that the trial court's sanction of $70,000 in attorney fees and costs was supported by substantial evidence that the husband in a dissolution action demonstrated a "steadfast, continued disregard of the court's orders and the terms of the parties' settlement agreement and judgment." Also, the sanctions order of $1,000 per day was not indefinite as he argued, but contingent solely on his compliance. And he failed to show the sanctions are an unreasonable burden. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Stratton, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: B313786, Categories: family Law, sanctions, Attorney Fees
J. Oliver finds that the trial court properly sanctioned a husband for failing to timely disclose his trial exhibits by excluding some of them, and it rightly found he failed to show that his wife had dissipated the marital estate. The division of marital property was correct except the trial court must revisit the husband's claim that money he withdrew from a joint account was for marital purposes to make findings about how it was spent. Vacated in part.
Court: Utah Court Of Appeals, Judge: Oliver, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: 20210713-CA, Categories: family Law, sanctions, Discovery
J. Moore finds that the lower court improperly dismissed the father's post-divorce action as a discovery sanction when it concluded that he had failed to comply with certain orders "to disclose his addresses and to produce the financial documents." However, the record does not show that he "willfully disobeyed the trial court" as to his addresses or as to certain bank records. Accordingly, the lower court could have imposed a lesser sanction. Reversed.
Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, Judge: Moore, Filed On: September 15, 2023, Case #: CL-2022-1175, Categories: family Law, sanctions
J. Brody finds that the district court improperly imposed an unconditional monetary sanction on an ex-husband for his failure to pay the spousal support, interest and fines owed under an Oregon contempt judgment. An unconditional sanction is criminal in nature but the district court did not provide the ex-husband the due process protections guaranteed by the federal constitution, such as the right to notice at his arraignment of criminal liability, the right to a public trial and the right to cross-examine witnesses. Vacated.
Court: Idaho Supreme Court, Judge: Brody, Filed On: August 22, 2023, Case #: 49772, Categories: Contempt, family Law, sanctions
J. Yarbrough finds that the lower court properly denied the appellants' request for attorney fees and sanctions in this case brought by the Department of Family and Protective Services. The department's petition was dismissed, but the appellants fail to "overcome the presumption that the petition was filed in good faith." Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Yarbrough, Filed On: August 1, 2023, Case #: 07-22-00051-CV, Categories: family Law, sanctions, Attorney Fees
J. Savoie finds that the trial court improperly found the ex-wife in contempt and that she was liable for sanctions due to allegedly frivolous pleadings. There was no judgment ordering the ex-wife to pay or reimburse for the child's tuition at the specified private school. Also, the ex-wife's motion for a new trial was not sanctionable. Reversed in part.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Savoie, Filed On: July 5, 2023, Case #: CA-22-804, Categories: Contempt, family Law, sanctions
J. Boyle finds the lower court properly denied the wife's motion for attorney fees in a divorce dispute because she failed to file her motion at the correct time and missed a procedural deadline. Meanwhile, the trial court properly refused to hold a hearing on the wife's motion for sanctions because it had already found the husband's claims to be non-frivolous and a hearing would not have changed the outcome. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Court Of Appeals, Judge: Boyle, Filed On: May 25, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-1752, Categories: family Law, sanctions, Attorney Fees
[Amended.] J. Easterly reverses the superior court's award of $70,000 in attorney fees to a man who sought sanctions against his former domestic partner after she unsuccessfully sued for a divorce. There is no evidence the woman acted in bad faith or engaged in egregious conduct when she pursued the action. Reversed.
Court: DC Court of Appeals, Judge: Easterly, Filed On: May 25, 2023, Case #: 21-FM-0737, Categories: family Law, sanctions, Attorney Fees