Marriage of Deal

Filed 1/16/07  Marriage of Deal CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

            Thomas Mark Deal appeals an order imposing attorney fees as sanctions in the amount of $17,786, and declaring him to be a vexatious litigant.  We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND^[1]

            A petition for dissolution of the marriage between Thomas Mark Deal and Patricia Kim Deal was filed in October 2001.  A judgment dissolving that marriage was entered in September 2002.  A determination of child support obligations and custody rights remained pending before the court.  Trial on those issues began in January 2004, and continued intermittently into December 2004.  

            Thomas began representing himself in June 2003.^[2]  That same month, he filed a second amended complaint in Deal v. Conefry, a separate civil action.  The second amended complaint, in part, first charged Kim with violating a January 2002 family court order by exiting her vehicle when picking up the parties' minor children at school.  The second amended complaint was ordered stricken and Kim was thereby dismissed from the action in July 2003. 

            In August 2003, Thomas filed another civil action against Kim, Deal v. Deal, alleging, inter alia, causes of action for destruction of personal property, improper punishment of the minor children, and violation of the January 2002 family court order because she allegedly exited her vehicle when picking up the children at school.  Kim's demurrer was sustained without leave to amend in July 2003, and the order of dismissal was affirmed by Division Five of this District (Deal v. Deal (Feb. 18, 2005, A105221 [nonpub. opn.].)  Division Five concluded that â€