California Family Code 271: Sanctions, Fees, 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 when their conduct has frustrated settlement or driven up the cost of the litigation. Unlike need-based fee awards, the person asking for a Section 271 sanction does not have to show they need the money. The focus is on behavior, not finances.¹

What the Statute Does

Section 271 asks a single question: did a party or attorney act in a way that furthered settlement and reduced costs, or did they do the opposite? If the answer is the latter, the court can shift the resulting fees and costs to the responsible person as a sanction.¹

The statute has three parts. Subdivision (a) gives the court its authority and sets the standard. Subdivision (b) requires that the person facing a sanction get notice and a chance to be heard before any order is entered. Subdivision (c) controls where the payment comes from: a sanction is payable only from the sanctioned party’s property or income, which includes that party’s share of community property but not the other spouse’s share.¹

Conduct That Can Trigger a Sanction

The statute does not list prohibited behaviors. It targets any conduct that frustrates settlement or increases costs unnecessarily, and courts have applied that language broadly. In practice, the behaviors that draw Section 271 motions tend to fall into recognizable categories:

Hiding assets, understating income, or filing incomplete financial disclosures.
Refusing to negotiate in good faith, making unreasonable demands, or refusing to participate in mediation.
Filing motions that serve mainly to delay the case, harass the other party, or run up legal bills.
Ignoring temporary orders on custody, support, or restraining orders.
Stonewalling discovery or giving evasive answers that force the other side to file motions to compel.

A party seeking sanctions does not need to prove bad faith. In In re Marriage of Tharp, the Court of Appeal held that the statute does not require the sanctioned behavior to be frivolous or taken solely for delay. If it frustrated settlement or increased costs, that is enough.²

No Need to Show Financial Need or Actual Harm

This is the feature of Section 271 that catches litigants off guard. The party requesting the sanction does not have to show they need the money. A high-earning spouse can still recover under Section 271 if the other side’s conduct made the case more expensive.¹

The Tharp court went further, holding that the requesting party does not have to prove actual injury either. The purpose of the statute is to deter the conduct, not to compensate for a measurable loss.²

How the Court Sets the Amount

Section 271 sets no cap. The court has discretion to fit the sanction to the case, guided by two requirements. It must consider all evidence of the parties’ incomes, assets, and liabilities. And it cannot impose a sanction that would place an unreasonable financial burden on the party being sanctioned.¹

That second requirement does not mean a sanction has to be painless. It means the judge has to look at the whole financial picture before setting the number. In practice, awards often track the extra attorney fees the requesting party incurred because of the other side’s conduct. If a refusal to disclose assets forced the other spouse to hire a forensic accountant and file three motions to compel, those costs give the court a concrete starting point.

Where Payment Comes From

Subdivision (c) limits the source of payment to the sanctioned party’s own property or income. The court cannot reach the other party’s separate property, and it cannot reach the requesting party’s share of community property. The sanctioned party’s share of community property, however, is available.¹

That matters most when most of the couple’s wealth is community property. If the sanctioned spouse has little separate income, the court can effectively reduce their share of the community estate to satisfy the award.

Attorneys Can Be Sanctioned Too

Section 271 applies to “each party or attorney.” A lawyer whose own tactics drive up costs faces liability alongside, or in place of, the client.¹ The statute does not draw a clean line between attorney-driven and client-driven obstruction, which leaves the judge considerable discretion in deciding who pays.

Section 271 Versus Section 2030 Fee Awards

California family law has two different routes to an attorney fee award, and they are easy to confuse. Section 271 is a sanction tied to conduct. Family Code 2030 is a need-based award that requires the court to ensure both parties have access to representation by ordering the higher-earning spouse to contribute when there is a meaningful income disparity.³

Section 271 is conduct-based, requires no showing of financial need, and ties the amount to the impact of the obstructive behavior.
Section 2030 is need-based, requires a finding that one party cannot afford adequate representation, and ties the amount to what the case reasonably requires.

The two provisions operate independently. A party can seek a Section 2030 order early in the case to fund an attorney and later move for Section 271 sanctions if the other side refuses to cooperate with discovery.

Notice, Hearing, and Defenses

A court cannot impose a Section 271 sanction without warning. Subdivision (b) requires notice and an opportunity to be heard. The requesting party files a motion identifying the specific conduct and the supporting evidence, and the party accused of obstruction gets to respond at a hearing. The court can also raise the issue on its own, but the same notice-and-hearing rules apply. Orders entered without proper notice are vulnerable on appeal.¹

If you are facing a sanctions motion, three defenses do most of the work. The first is showing that your conduct was reasonable. Protecting a legitimate legal position is not obstruction, even when it adds to the cost of the case, and courts recognize that reasonable people can disagree about litigation strategy. The second is financial hardship. Because the statute forbids sanctions that create an unreasonable burden, detailed documentation of your income, assets, and debts can push the court to reduce the amount or deny the motion. The third is procedural. If you did not get adequate notice or a real chance to respond, any resulting order is open to challenge on appeal.¹

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