Which Family Code?

[Zigner]

Based on her income, the sanctions may be granted.

Based on her income, sure, but NOT based on the DIFFERENCE between the income of the parties...


That's what disparity means...look it up.

 

[dmcc10880]

Based on her income, sure, but NOT based on the DIFFERENCE between the income of the parties...


That's what disparity means...look it up.

Trust me, I know what disparity means. Stop playing the semantics card and admit I'm right and you are not.

 

[dmcc10880]

Zig... I see you must have taken my advice and started drinking at about 12:30 PDT

 

[Zigner]

Trust me, I know what disparity means. Stop playing the semantics card and admit I'm right and you are not.

Go back and look at my FIRST post that mentioned this. I've been using the word disparity all along - you just missed it.

I'm done here - I'm sure you're not though.

 

[LdiJ]

Don't play the semantics card.

That, "the court shall take into consideration all evidence concerning the parties' incomes, assets, and liabilities. The court shall not impose a sanction pursuant to this section that imposes an unreasonable financial burden on the
party against whom the sanction is imposed."

Let me say this verrrrry slowwwwly for you.

The court looks at the "parties'" incomes, assets and liabilities. The court will not impose a sanction on a party who will place an unreasonable financial burden on the party against whom the sanction is imposed.

Lots of money= sanctioned.
No money= not sanctioned.

She makes $180k. He makes $60k. She more likely than he can afford the sanction if imposed. She brought the action. He's responding. Court finds her motion frustrating to the court. He asks for sanctions. Based on her income, the sanctions may be granted.

Just admit that he is more likely to be awarded sanctions and get them, than she is.

It's obvious that y o u d o n o t g e t i t.

If you quoted that statute to indicate that its not very likely that the OP would be ordered to pay mom's legal fees, then I don't have a problem with it.

However, it seemed to me like you quoted that section in support of dad's overall legal position and of course, its irrelevant for anything else.

 

[dmcc10880]

If you quoted that statute to indicate that its not very likely that the OP would be ordered to pay mom's legal fees, then I don't have a problem with it.

However, it seemed to me like you quoted that section in support of dad's overall legal position and of course, its irrelevant for anything else.

I quoted the statute used to request sanctions against the moving party. If you don't ask, you don't get. CA FC271 specifically relates to requesting sanctions, which the OP should refer to while asking for. It's not irrelevant.

The other code sections mentioned would help dad in supporting his position to request the court uphold the original order.

 

[Ohiogal]

Don't play the semantics card.

That, "the court shall take into consideration all evidence concerning the parties' incomes, assets, and liabilities. The court shall not impose a sanction pursuant to this section that imposes an unreasonable financial burden on the
party against whom the sanction is imposed."

Let me say this verrrrry slowwwwly for you.

The court looks at the "parties'" incomes, assets and liabilities. The court will not impose a sanction on a party who will place an unreasonable financial burden on the party against whom the sanction is imposed.

Lots of money= sanctioned.
No money= not sanctioned.

She makes $180k. He makes $60k. She more likely than he can afford the sanction if imposed. She brought the action. He's responding. Court finds her motion frustrating to the court. He asks for sanctions. Based on her income, the sanctions may be granted.

Just admit that he is more likely to be awarded sanctions and get them, than she is.

It's obvious that y o u d o n o t g e t i t.

Attorney fees are NOT the same thing as sanctions. Someone MIGHT be sanctioned by being ordered to pay attorney fees but attorney fees are NOT sanctions. They may be asked for even if the motion is NOT frivolous and has merit. Sometimes it could be awarded. many times it won't be.

 

[dmcc10880]

Attorney fees are NOT the same thing as sanctions. Someone MIGHT be sanctioned by being ordered to pay attorney fees but attorney fees are NOT sanctions. They may be asked for even if the motion is NOT frivolous and has merit. Sometimes it could be awarded. many times it won't be.

OG... Respectfully, as Section 271 (a) clearly states...

"An award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to this section is in the nature of a sanction."

(b) An award of attorney's fees and costs as a sanction pursuant
to this section shall be imposed only after notice to the party
against whom the sanction is proposed to be imposed and opportunity
for that party to be heard.

(c) An award of attorney's fees and costs as a sanction pursuant
to this section is payable only from the property or income of the
party against whom the sanction is imposed, except that the award may
be against the sanctioned party's share of the community property.

Often times, California Courts will sign off on orders like this:

Petitioner shall pay Respondent forthwith $xxxx for his attorneys fees; and
Petitioner shall pay Respondent forthwith $xxxx as and for sanctions pursuant to Family Code Section 271.

Ohio may be different.