Hoogenberg v. Simmons
215 Cal. App. 4th 584
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Keith Simmons appeals a sanctions judgment arising from dissolution litigation with Tracy Hoogenberg; the trial court imposed sanctions under Family Code sections 2107 and 271 and 1101(h) for nondisclosures and other conduct.
- The case involved substantial assets and lengthy litigation despite brief marriage and single child; final 2011 decision awarded Tracy sanctions totaling $150,000 (2107) and $250,000 (271) plus $245,850.24 (1101(h) value of Keith’s separate property Wells Fargo savings).
- Keith allegedly engaged in false or delayed disclosures, improper asset handling, discovery noncompliance, and trial deposition failures.
- The trial court found Keith’s conduct breached fiduciary duties and frustrated settlement, justifying sanctions and the 1101(h) remedy.
- On appeal, Keith challenged the 2107/271 sanctions as excessive, the denial of need-based attorney fees under 2030, the applicability of 1101(h) to separate property, and the lack of a continuance; the court affirmed in part and reversed the 1101(h) award on the separate-property issue.
- This opinion’s published portion reverses the 1101(h) sanction; remands for reconsideration of total sanctions under 2107 and 271; otherwise affirms the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1101(h) applies to nondisclosure of separate property. | Keith argues 1101(h) applies to any asset, including separate property. | Hoogenberg contends 1101(h) should apply to community assets disclosed in fiduciary context. | 1101(h) does not apply to separate property. |
| Whether the trial court should alter total sanctions after removing 1101(h). | Keith requests no change beyond 1101(h) reversal. | Hoogenberg seeks total sanctions under 2107 and 271 remain intact or adjusted as appropriate. | Remand to determine whether to alter total sanctions under 2107 and 271. |
| Whether need-based attorney fees under Family Code 2030 were properly denied. | Keith argues for need-based fees. | Hoogenberg asserts no need-based fee entitlement. | Unfavorably resolved for Keith; denial affirmed. |
| Whether the second day of trial and continuance denial were proper. | Keith contends error in proceeding in absence. | Hoogenberg's position preserved; admissibility unaffected. | Unpublished portion rejected Keith’s contentions. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Prentis-Margulis & Margulis, 198 Cal.App.4th 1252 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2011) (1101(h) remedies tied to community property)
- In re Marriage of Fossum, 192 Cal.App.4th 336 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2011) (fiduciary duties in community property disclosures)
- In re Marriage of Rossi, 90 Cal.App.4th 34 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2001) (section 1101 remedies for nondisclosure)
- In re Marriage of Hokanson, 68 Cal.App.4th 987 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1998) (sanctions for fiduciary breaches in dissolution)
- In re Marriage of Walker, 138 Cal.App.4th 1408 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2006) (fiduciary duties and separate property context)
- Fong v. Fong, 193 Cal.App.4th 278 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2011) (statutory interpretation of family law provisions)