Davenport v. Davenport
194 Cal.App.4th 1507 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California Family Code § 271, a court may impose monetary sanctions against a party for their attorney's uncivil, hostile, and uncooperative conduct that frustrates the policy of promoting settlement and increases litigation costs, as zealous advocacy does not excuse a lack of professional civility.
Facts:
- Jill L. Davenport and Ken L. Davenport were married in 1948, separating in 1990 after accumulating an estate valued at approximately $57 million.
- For 16 years after separating, Ken continued to manage the couple's financial affairs while they remained unmarried.
- In a February 2006 letter, Jill expressed fear of Ken's 'manic raging,' accused him of dishonesty, and requested financial records and a large lump sum payment, while also expressing a desire to resolve matters 'with no legal fees.'
- Ken responded that he would try to comply but needed more time to discuss the payment.
- Days later, in March 2006, Jill filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.
- Jill's case was primarily handled by Andrew Watters, a newly admitted and inexperienced attorney.
- Throughout the litigation, Watters engaged in hostile, rude, and disrespectful correspondence with Ken's attorneys.
- Watters also engaged in other uncooperative conduct, including filing motions without meeting and conferring, violating a mediation privilege by disclosing confidential information, and acting surreptitiously regarding the extraction of data from a shared business computer.
Procedural Posture:
- Jill L. Davenport filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Ken L. Davenport in the Sonoma County Superior Court (trial court).
- During the proceedings, Jill filed a motion under Family Code § 271 seeking $600,861 in attorney fees and $332,933 in costs as sanctions against Ken.
- In response, Ken filed his own request for attorney fees and costs as sanctions against Jill under the same statute.
- After a five-day evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Jill's motion.
- The trial court granted Ken's motion, ordering Jill to pay Ken $100,000 in sanctions and $304,387 for his attorney's fees.
- Jill (appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the California Court of Appeal, First District. Ken is the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion under Family Code § 271 by awarding sanctions against a party based on their attorney's uncivil, aggressive, and uncooperative litigation tactics that frustrate the policy of promoting settlement and reducing litigation costs?
Opinions:
Majority - Richman, J.
No. The trial court does not abuse its discretion by sanctioning a party under Family Code § 271 for their attorney's conduct that frustrates settlement and increases litigation costs. The record provides substantial evidence that the conduct of Jill's attorney, including his uncivil and unprofessional correspondence and his uncooperative litigation tactics, warranted the sanctions. Section 271's purpose is to promote settlement and reduce costs by encouraging cooperation, and it imposes a minimum level of professionalism. The court found that the attorney's 'uncivil, rude, aggressive, and unprofessional conduct' violated this standard by unnecessarily increasing acrimony and expense. The argument that such behavior is protected by the litigation privilege or excused as 'zealous advocacy' is rejected, as civility and zealousness are not mutually exclusive. The statute explicitly makes parties liable for their counsel's obstreperous actions, so imposing the sanction on Jill was proper.
Analysis:
This case strongly reinforces the judiciary's expectation of civility and professionalism, particularly in the emotionally charged field of family law. It establishes that 'zealous advocacy' is not a defense for hostile or uncooperative behavior that inflates litigation costs and obstructs settlement. The decision clarifies that under Family Code § 271, a client is financially responsible for their attorney's misconduct, creating a powerful incentive for clients to monitor their counsel's professionalism. By affirming a substantial sanctions award based heavily on unprofessional communications, the court sends a clear message that discourteous 'scorched earth' tactics will not be tolerated and can have severe financial consequences.
Unlock the full brief for Davenport v. Davenport