In re Marriage of MacIntyre

Filed 7/7/06 In re Marriage of MacIntyre CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 TWO

INTRODUCTION

Patrick MacIntyre appeals in propria persona from the order of the Contra Costa County Superior Court granting respondent Fiona MacIntyre's motion for attorney fees and sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271.[1] He contends that the sanctions order is not supported by substantial evidence; that the court erred in striking the declarations he presented in opposition to the motion; that the trial court's striking of respondent's own declaration in support of the motion should have triggered an automatic dismissal of her motion in its entirety under Contra Costa County Local Rules of Court, rule 12.4 (g),[2] that he was prevented from showing that he had no ability to pay sanctions; and that he was denied due process of law. We shall affirm the order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Appellant filed his petition for dissolution of his marriage with respondent on December 11, 2001. The couple has two children, a daughter born in 1991 and a son born in 1997. A judgment of dissolution was entered on August 17, 2004. Appellant and respondent entered into a stipulated judgment as to the division of community property, family support, custody of the children and attorney fees. Among other things, the judgment awarded respondent the family residence in Lafayette, California, subject to existing encumbrances, including a monthly mortgage, as well as an equalizing payment of $417,500 to be made in three $20,000 payments over a 90-day period following entry of judgment and payment of the balance 120 days thereafter, subject to simple interest if not paid in full by then.

During the course of the litigation, appellant engaged in a pattern of uncooperative and obstructive behavior, as detailed in the declaration of respondent's attorney Gregory Abel in the sanctions proceeding. These actions included failing to carry out the exchange of deeds and initial equalization payments called for in the stipulated judgment. Respondent therefore moved on October 12, 2004, to enforce the terms of the judgment, specifically the exchange of deeds, withdrawal of liens and payment of the initial installments of the equalizing payments. She also sought to be declared the prevailing party for purposes of attorney fees and sought a finding that appellant's conduct was sanctionable pursuant to section 271.

On October 26, 2004, the trial court granted respondent's motion, conducted the exchange of deeds and the two initial installments of equalizing payment in court, and found that respondent was the prevailing party for purposes of attorney fees incurred in enforcing the judgment. On November 2, 2004, the court entered an order after hearing finding â€