Falcone v. Fyke
203 Cal. App. 4th 964
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Five in propria persona appeals by Kathey Fyke arising from a dissolution proceeding with Richard S. Falcone, challenging multiple postjudgment orders and a prejudgment sanction.
- The trial court bifurcated and decided issues including marital property division, attorney fees and sanctions, and accounting post-trial.
- Judgment variously divided assets (Sunnyvale residence equity, Wells Fargo trust funds, rental value, pension, and reimbursed funds) and taxed Kathey for certain amounts; the court referred fraud concerns about proofs of service to authorities.
- Kathey sought need-based attorney fees under Family Code sections 2030-2032, made oral motions at trial, and faced discovery sanctions excluding her trial binders and certain evidence.
- The court imposed sanctions against Kathey for conduct, including an award of $883,025 in fees, costs, and sanctions drawn from the Saratoga property trust, with related accounting and lien provisions.
- The court later granted postjudgment sanctions and accounting orders, and the matter culminated in a finding that Kathey is a vexatious litigant under CCP sections 391-391.7.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney fees: timeliness and consideration | Fyke argues trial court erred denying oral fee motion. | Falcone argues motion untimely and repetitive; discretion to deny. | |
| 0 | No error; court properly denied as untimely/redundant and considered circumstances. | ||
| Exclusion of evidence for discovery sanction | Kathey contends binders/evidence should be admitted. | Richard argues sanction for discovery noncompliance was proper. | Admission/exclusion within court’s discretion; no abuse found. |
| Time limit on presenting case | Kathey claims improper time restriction prejudiced her. | Falcone contends restraint was due to Kathey’s conduct. | No reversible prejudice; limit attributable to Kathey’s conduct. |
| Credibility ruling about Dora Williams proofs of service | Kathey claims error for credibility ruling preempting defense. | Richard relies on court findings of false service signatures. | Harmless given the credibility issues and lack of rebuttal evidence. |
| Watts/Epstein adjustments and property offsets | Kathey argues improper offsets and lack of Epstein credit. | Falcone maintains Watts offset applied where appropriate; Epstein credits not warranted. | Watts charge applied; Epstein credits not awarded due to lack of claim evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Corona, 172 Cal.App.4th 1181 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009) (sanctions under Fam. Code §271 may not require need-based showings and may exceed actual costs)
- In re Marriage of Dietz, 176 Cal.App.4th 387 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2009) (broad discretion in need-based attorney fees; must reflect statutory factors)
- In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke, 164 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2008) (sanctions and attorney-fess issues; appellate history and conduct factors)
- Elkins v. Superior Court, 41 Cal.4th 133 (Cal. 2007) (trial court may exclude oral testimony in family law matters consistent with statutory framework)
- In re Whitaker, 6 Cal.App.4th 54 (Cal. App. 1992) (courts protect time/resources from frivolous appellate activity)