Legal Opinion
Parker v. Harbert
California Court of Appeal
Decided December 19, 2012No. A134060PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
JONES, P. J.
Lee D. Harbert appeals from a judgment ordering him to pay $92,000 in attorney fees and costs as sanctions pursuant to Family Code section 271.1 He contends (1) the court’s “finding of objective unreasonableness constitutes prejudicial error”; (2) insufficient evidence supports the award of sanctions; and (3) the application of section 271 violates his federal and state constitutional rights.
We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Harbert and Cynthia M. Parker have been litigating child custody and child support issues in this case for over a decade. As relevant here,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- In Re Marriage of FlahertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Davenport v. DavenportCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Berger v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Bianco v. California Highway PatrolCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
- Petropoulos v. PetropoulosCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Sagonowsky v. KekoaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Godfrey v. Oakland Port Services Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2014
- 139 S. Occidental Blvd. v. Ha CA2/7California Court of Appeal · 2013
- Anne H. v. Michael B.California Court of Appeal · 2016
- Calvo, Fisher & Jacob v. Lujan CA1/2California Court of Appeal · 2014
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.