Leino v. Balkcom CA3
This is a shotgun-approach appeal in which trustee Kristopher D. Leino and his attorney Fred A. Ihejirika present 17 separate arguments against an order requiring them to jointly pay $16,060 in sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 128.7. The trial court imposed the sanctions on grounds Leino and Ihejirika (appellants) refused to remove a lis pendens on Balkcom’s property for more than a year after Leino’s underlying probate action was dismissed. The trial court expressly found appellants’ refusal to withdraw the lis pendens was “for an improper purpose, that is was to harass or cause unnecessary cost and litigation, and it was because [Leino] simply refused to accept and honor the Court’s decision.”
Appellants contend (1) the motion for sanctions was not brought separately as required by section 128.7, subdivision (b), (2) the served and filed versions of the motion were different, (3) the version of the motion for sanctions filed with the court constituted
Comments on Leino v. Balkcom CA3