California Family Code 271: Sanctions, Conduct, and Defenses

California Family Code 271 lets a family court order one party, or that party’s attorney, to pay the other side’s attorney fees and costs as a sanction for conduct that frustrated settlement or unnecessarily drove up the cost of the case. The person asking for the award does not have to show financial need. That single feature is what makes the statute unusual, and it is the reason litigants who assume fee awards are only for the lower-earning spouse often get caught off guard.¹

What Section 271 Does

The statute asks one question: did a party’s or attorney’s conduct further or frustrate the policy of settling family law disputes and reducing litigation costs? If the answer is that the conduct frustrated that policy, the court can shift the resulting fees and costs to the responsible person.¹

Section 271 has three subdivisions. Subdivision (a) grants the authority and sets the standard. Subdivision (b) requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before any sanction is entered. Subdivision (c) restricts where the money can come from: only the sanctioned party’s separate property, separate income, or share of community property.¹

Conduct That Triggers Sanctions

The statute does not list specific prohibited behaviors. It targets the effect of the conduct, not a checklist. In practice, sanctions motions tend to arise from a few recognizable patterns:

Hiding or misrepresenting finances, understating income, or filing incomplete disclosures.
Refusing to negotiate in good faith, making unreasonable demands, or rejecting offers without explanation.
Filing frivolous motions meant to delay proceedings or run up the other side’s bills.
Ignoring temporary orders on custody, support, or restraining orders.
Obstructing discovery by refusing to produce records or giving evasive answers that force motions to compel.

Bad faith is not required. In In re Marriage of Tharp, the Court of Appeal held that the sanctioned conduct need not be frivolous or taken solely for delay. If it frustrated settlement or increased costs, that is enough.²

No Need to Prove Financial Need or Actual Injury

Unlike need-based fee awards, Section 271 does not require the requesting party to show they cannot afford their own attorney. A high-earning spouse can still collect a sanction against a lower-earning spouse whose conduct drove up costs.¹

The Tharp court went further, holding that the requesting party does not have to prove actual injury from the conduct. The purpose of the sanction is to deter obstruction, not to compensate measurable harm.²

Notice and Hearing Are Required

Sanctions cannot appear out of nowhere. Subdivision (b) requires that the party facing a sanction receive notice and an opportunity to be heard. That usually means a noticed motion identifying the specific conduct and supporting evidence, followed by a hearing where the accused party can respond. The court can also raise the sanctions issue on its own, but the notice and hearing requirement still applies. A sanction entered without proper notice is vulnerable on appeal.¹

How Judges Set the Amount

Section 271 sets no cap and no fixed formula. The court has broad discretion, guided by two constraints in subdivision (a). It must consider all evidence of the parties’ incomes, assets, and liabilities, and it cannot impose a sanction that creates an unreasonable financial burden on the sanctioned party.¹

That does not mean the sanction has to be painless. It means the judge has to look at the sanctioned party’s full financial picture before setting the number. In practice, courts often anchor the amount to the additional attorney fees the requesting party incurred because of the conduct. If concealment of assets forced the other side to retain a forensic accountant and litigate multiple discovery motions, that documented cost gives the court a concrete starting point.

Where the Money Comes From

Subdivision (c) limits the sources a court can reach. Sanctions are payable only from the sanctioned party’s separate property, separate income, or that party’s share of community property. The court cannot reach the requesting party’s assets or community share to satisfy the award.¹

This matters most in cases where nearly all the wealth is community property. A sanctioned spouse with little separate income cannot escape by pointing to a bare separate estate; the court can offset the award against their share of the community.

Attorneys Can Be Sanctioned Too

Section 271 authorizes an award against “each party or attorney.” A lawyer whose own tactics frustrated settlement can be ordered to pay the sanction personally, either alongside the client or instead of the client. The statute does not draw a bright line between attorney-driven and client-driven obstruction, so the judge decides where the award lands based on the record.¹

Section 271 vs. Section 2030

Section 271 is easy to confuse with Family Code 2030, and the two do very different work. Section 2030 is a need-based fee award: it directs the higher-earning spouse to contribute to the other spouse’s attorney fees so both sides have access to representation when incomes are unequal.³

Section 271 is a sanction. It looks at conduct, not income disparity, and the requesting party does not need to show need. A party can seek both in the same case: a 2030 order early on to fund the litigation, and a 271 order later if the other side obstructs.

Defenses to a Sanctions Motion

If a Section 271 motion has been filed against you, several arguments can narrow or defeat it. The strongest is that your conduct was reasonable. A motion the other side calls frivolous is not sanctionable if it had a legitimate legal basis. Protecting your rights in litigation is not obstruction, even when it adds cost.

Financial hardship is a separate argument tied directly to the statute. Because the court cannot impose an unreasonable financial burden, detailed evidence of your income, assets, and debts can force a reduction in the amount, even when the underlying finding of obstructive conduct stands.¹

Procedural defenses also matter. If notice was inadequate or you were denied a real opportunity to respond, a resulting sanction is exposed on appeal. Subdivision (b) treats the hearing right as a prerequisite, not a formality.¹

How Section 271 Shapes a Case

The financial exposure under Section 271 is real. Sanctions can cover the full range of extra costs caused by the conduct, not just the fees on a single motion. In cases with high hourly rates, a pattern of obstruction can produce awards in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Section 271 also works as a deterrent. A cooperative party who is dealing with stonewalling on discovery or serial unreasonable demands can cite the statute in correspondence and, in many cases, get movement without filing anything. Most family law judges prefer that use of the statute over having to enter the sanction themselves.

1
California Legislative Information. California Code FAM 271
2
FindLaw. In re the Marriage of Casey O. and Mary Beth Tharp
3
California Legislative Information. California Code FAM 2030