Know When to Say When

The dreaded “nightmare” divorce case. The factual circumstances usually almost always fit the following profile. The parties were married for fifteen or so years, have a couple of kids, a normal estate complete with real property and retirements, and an array of personal property. Although a typical case like this should be simple to resolve, the parties are just unable to see “eye to eye” on even the simplest of issues and their divorce case spirals out of control. The litigants become engrossed in court proceedings, spending inordinate amounts of time and money to get back at their former spouse at any cost.

At times, Judges will be so bold as to comment that the litigants are wasting time and money fighting it out in court. But for some people, the principle of any given dispute is of paramount concern, often to the detriment of common sense. The litigants spend years and thousands of dollars on issues that should be resolved with a simple meeting. At times, our court system scoffs at such a wasteful endeavor and makes a statement that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated.

Such was the case in Marriage of Falcone (2008), 164 Cal. App. 4th 814. In that matter, the parties married in 1985 and separated in 2003. Since 2003, the parties had been in constant litigation. Petitioner/Wife had filed no less than nine separate appeals and/or writs, various motions for a new trial, requests for reconsideration of prior rulings, and generally every cognizable claim allowed in Family Court.

The background of the appellate case is simple. Wife filed a contempt action against Husband for allegedly failing to pay the full amount of child and spousal support previously ordered by the Court. The support Order provided that Husband was to make monthly payments half on the first of every month and half on the fifteenth of every month. Husband, however, paid the full support amount in one payment on the fifteenth of every month, instead of two equal payments. Wife’s claim, essentially, was that Husband was in violation of the court Order and that Wife was being deprived of “interest income” for the fifteen days that she did not have the first half of the support payment. An interesting legal proposition to say the least.

Husband’s attorneys repeatedly asked Wife to amend or dismiss the contempt motion, explaining that Husband could not be in contempt of the Order for support payments since he had made those payments in full every month. Wife continued to pursue the contempt action and the matter was ultimately set for trial. Husband’s attorneys noticed that they were seeking substantial sanctions because the contempt was frivolous. The matter proceeded to trial where Husband successfully had the entire contempt action dismissed. The Court then addressed the issue of sanctions.

In a written opinion, the Court found that Wife “insists on pursuing her way even when it is not appropriate. After notice and warning from the Court that she would not be successful in her [contempt] motion, she persisted in proceedings….the Court finds, after considering the financial circumstances of the parties and their conduct, that an award of sanctions against [Wife] is warranted.” The trial Court ultimately imposed an award of attorney fees, costs, and sanctions in the aggregate amount of $64,500 against Wife.

The moral of the story is that Family Court might not be the best avenue for former spouses to battle it out. Litigants who use the system to get back at their former spouse may find that the Court will not tolerate that behavior when those actions carry no legal merit. The Court’s only weapon to combat frivolous litigation is to Order one spouse to pay the attorney fees for the other spouse in the form of a sanction. That, in and of itself, should act as a deterrent. However, in some cases, even the threat of financial penalties is not enough to stop the “nightmare divorce.”