Legal Opinion

Perow v. Uzelac (In re Perow)

California Court of Appeal, 5th District

Decided January 31, 2019No. B283457PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtHoffstadt, J.

*986When a party to a dissolution proceeding moves to modify an existing order, the other party may ask the court for "affirmative relief" in a responsive pleading, but only if that relief is "alternative to that requested by the moving party" and "on the same issues raised by the moving party." ( Fam. Code, § 213, subd. (a).)1 Is a responding party's request for sanction-based attorney fees under section 271 a request for "affirmative *987relief"? We conclude that it is not. Accordingly, and because the appealing party's other challenge lacks merit, we affirm the award of sanctions in the form of…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. City of Stockton v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Day v. City of FontanaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  3. People v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Apple Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Coleman v. Gulf Insurance GroupCalifornia Supreme Court · 1986

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Shenefield v. ShenefieldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API