Davenport v. Davenport
194 Cal. App. 4th 1507
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Jill L. Davenport and Ken L. Davenport, married in 1948, separated in 1990; dissolution filed in 2006.
- Extensive litigation followed, with Jill's counsel Andrew Watters handling key filings; ultimately 19 volumes of court files.
- May 2008: Jill moved for sanctions and attorney fees under Family Code §271; Ken filed a §271 request of his own.
- Judge Cereña Wong presided; after five days of hearing and briefing, issued a 31-page decision denying Jill’s motion and granting Ken’s sanctions and fees.
- Judge Wong found multiple sanctionable conduct by Jill’s side, including failure to meet and confer, abusive correspondence, and improper use of mediation materials.
- Jill appealed, arguing evidentiary and procedural errors; the appellate court affirmed, upholding the sanctions order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §271 sanctions were proper given the evidence | Jill argues no substantial evidence supports sanctions; court misapplied law. | Davenport contends conduct violated §271 policy to promote settlement and deter costs. | Sanctions upheld; substantial evidence supports §271 sanctions against Jill. |
| Whether Judge Wong relied on admissible evidence | Wife asserts ruling relied on inadmissible or improper evidence and overruled objections. | Husband asserts evidence was admissible; court properly weighed declarations and exhibits. | No reversible error; substantial evidence supports decision despite objections. |
| Whether the expedited pretrial hearing was necessary | Wife claims expedited hearing was required by Feldman and warranted by conduct. | Husband argues expedited hearing was unnecessary and expensive. | Court abused by ordering expedited hearing; but sanctions nonetheless upheld on other bases. |
| Whether notice and form for §271 sanctions were proper | Wife asserts notice/form deficiencies violated due process. | Husband contends notice satisfied statutory requirements; form not tightly prescribed. | Notice adequate under Feldman; form requirement not strict; no due process violation. |
| Whether the amount of sanctions/fees awarded is supported by the record | Wife contends awards exceed evidentiary support. | Husband asserts award is supported by Johnson declarations and billing summaries. | Awards supported by detailed declarations and records; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Feldman, 153 Cal.App.4th 1470 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (sanctions for fiduciary nondisclosure; Feldman cited for comparison)
- In re Marriage of Corona, 172 Cal.App.4th 1205 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (sanctions policy to promote settlement; discretion standard)
- In re Marriage of Daniels, 19 Cal.App.4th 1102 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (section 271 aims to promote cooperation and reduce costs)
- In re Marriage of Freeman, 132 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (section 271 sanctions policy and timing considerations)
- In re Marriage of Quinlan, 209 Cal.App.3d 1417 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (notice and hearing requirements for sanctions)
- Nestle v. City of Santa Monica, 6 Cal.3d 923 (Cal. 1972) (appellate review principle: resolve conflicts in favor of trial court)
- Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc., 178 Cal.App.4th 243 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (evidence authentication and admissibility guidance)