Family Code 271 Attorney's Fees and Costs

If your spouse, or their lawyer, is running up your legal bill on purpose, Family Code 271 is how the court makes them pay for it. Literally. It allows a judge to order one party to pay the other's attorney's fees and costs as a punishment for unreasonable conduct.

That is what makes it powerful. And that is why these requests almost always end up in front of the family law judge.

This guide explains what section 271 says, what it actually does, and how it gets used. None of it is legal advice about your situation.

What Family Code 271 actually says

The statute has five parts. Here they are, in plain order, with what each one really means.

Part one: the court can punish bad behavior with fees

Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the court may base an award of attorney's fees and costs on the extent to which the conduct of each party or attorney furthers or frustrates the policy of the law to promote settlement of litigation and, where possible, to reduce the cost of litigation by encouraging cooperation between the parties and attorneys.

Translation: California wants people to settle and cooperate. If you blow that up on purpose, the judge can hit you in the wallet.

Part two: it is a sanction, and the court looks at finances

An award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to this section is in the nature of a sanction. In making an award pursuant to this section, the court shall take into consideration all evidence concerning the parties' incomes, assets, and liabilities.

This is a punishment, not a reimbursement. The judge weighs both sides' financial pictures before deciding the amount.

Part three: no unreasonable burden, and the requesting party does not need to prove need

The court shall not impose a sanction pursuant to this section that imposes an unreasonable financial burden on the party against whom the sanction is imposed. In order to obtain an award under this section, the party requesting an award of attorney's fees and costs is not required to demonstrate any financial need for the award.

The judge cannot crush you with a sanction you genuinely cannot absorb. But the person asking for the sanction does not have to prove they need the money. More on this below, because it matters.

Part four: the other side gets notice and a hearing

An award of attorney's fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to this section shall be imposed only after notice to the party against whom the sanction is proposed to be imposed and opportunity for that party to be heard.

No surprise sanctions. The other party must be told it is coming and given a chance to respond.

Part five: the money comes from the bad actor's property or income

An award of attorney's fees and costs as a sanction pursuant to this section is payable only from the property or income of the party against whom the sanction is imposed, except that the award may be against the sanctioned party's share of the community property.

The sanctioned party pays out of their own assets or income, or out of their share of the community property. Not yours.

The policy behind Family Code 271

The policy is simple. California courts want family law cases to settle. They want both sides to cooperate. They want the costs kept under control. When someone torpedoes that on purpose, whether through stalling, hiding the ball, taking absurd positions, or just refusing to act like an adult, Family Code 271 gives the other party a way to make them pay for the damage they caused. It punishes bad behavior. And by punishing it, it pushes everyone toward settlement and reasonable compromise.

How much notice does the other side get?

The statute does not set a minimum. It just says the other party must get notice and a chance to be heard. What counts as proper notice depends on the case. California appellate courts have given some general guidance, but there is no fixed rule. The safer move is more notice rather than less.

Notice by request for order

The most common way is to file a formal request for order with the court and serve it on the other party. That sets a hearing date where both sides show up, present evidence, and argue whether sanctions should be awarded.

Lawyers often bundle a section 271 request with other requests, like a Family Code 2030 and 2032 attorney fee request, or a support request if support is also in play.

Notice without a request for order

Sometimes the notice goes out in writing, filed and served on the other party, telling them sanctions will be requested at a future hearing date already on the calendar. A divorce trial is a common example.

What does the notice actually have to say?

It has to be specific. California appellate courts have made that clear.

The notice should identify the specific conduct that violated Family Code 271 and the specific grounds for the sanction. It should be directed at the specific party you are seeking sanctions against. Vague notice invites a judge to deny the request.

How specific is specific enough? That is one of those legal judgment calls where the answer depends on the facts. Get advice from a lawyer on your case before you file.

What is the sanction?

Money. Specifically, attorney's fees and costs.

If your spouse's behavior caused you to rack up $10,000 in attorney's fees and $5,000 in costs that you should never have had to spend, you can ask the court to order them to pay that amount.

Where does the sanction money come from?

From the sanctioned party's own property, their income, or their share of the community property. Not from yours, and not from the other party's separate property.

The requesting party does not have to show need

This is where Family Code 271 splits sharply from Family Codes 2030 and 2032.

Sections 2030 and 2032 are need-based. Section 271 is not. Because section 271 is a sanction, it is about punishing bad conduct, not about leveling the financial playing field. The person asking for the sanction does not have to prove they need the money.

That means the higher earner, or the spouse with more access to cash, can still seek section 271 sanctions against the other party.

Is that fair?

Some people think it is not. Then they think about it for two minutes.

If a spouse could behave unreasonably, recklessly, or maliciously throughout the case and run up the other side's fees, and the only defense the other side had was "well, I have more money," that would be a free pass for bad behavior. California's policy is that everyone, regardless of bank balance, has to act reasonably in family court.

"My lawyer did it" is not a defense

You generally cannot dodge a section 271 sanction by pointing at your attorney. The conduct of your lawyer in your case can be enough to get the sanction imposed on you.

The "unreasonable financial burden" standard

The statute says the court cannot impose a sanction that creates an unreasonable financial burden on the party being sanctioned. It also says the court must consider both parties' incomes, assets, and liabilities.

That is not the same as ability to pay.

How section 271 differs from sections 2030 and 2032 here

Sections 2030 and 2032 use an ability-to-pay standard. Section 271 uses an unreasonable-financial-burden standard. Those sound similar. They are not.

If Party A seeks section 271 sanctions against Party B, it is not enough for Party B to say they cannot afford it. Party B has to show the sanction would be an unreasonable burden, which is a higher bar.

There is no clean definition of unreasonable financial burden. Like most things in the Family Code, it depends on the facts.

Two questions come up often:

• Does the party asking for sanctions have to prove the sanction would not be an unreasonable burden?
• Or does the party opposing sanctions have to prove that it would?

Our view is that the party opposing sanctions carries that burden, because unreasonable financial burden functions like a defense to the request. Other lawyers may see it differently.

The role of settlement offers

In civil cases, settlement offers are usually inadmissible. Family law treats them differently.

In a section 271 fight, settlement offers can be evidence of who tried to be reasonable and who refused. That makes them potentially admissible when bringing or defending a sanctions request.

This applies to settlement offers made outside of mediation. Offers made inside the mediation process are protected by mediation confidentiality, and using them in a later section 271 request is a complicated issue. There are sometimes ways around it. Ask an experienced family law attorney whether your case has those options.

Section 271 requests before judgment

Before judgment, a section 271 request usually goes in as part of a formal request for order. Either party can file one and have the issue heard before trial.

Some judges hesitate to award section 271 fees before trial. We have never understood the logic.

If a judge lets a party run wild during the case and inflate the other side's fees with no consequence, what is section 271 even for? The statute does not require the judge to wait for trial. There is no California case law forcing a judge to punt the issue. A family law judge should be willing to award section 271 sanctions whenever the conduct calls for it.

Section 271 requests at trial

Section 271 requests can also be heard at trial.

Sometimes the issue is heard alongside the other contested issues. Sometimes the judge waits until everything else has been decided before turning to section 271.

The second approach has a logic to it. Once the judge has heard all the evidence and made the rulings, it is easier to see who took reasonable positions and who did not.

Section 271 requests after judgment

Section 271 does not stop applying once the judgment is entered. It is fair game in post-judgment proceedings too, including modification requests.

Child custody, parenting time, child support, and alimony are all issues that can be modified after judgment. If your ex takes unreasonable positions and forces litigation that should never have happened, section 271 is on the table.

Common questions about Family Code 271

How long does it take to get a Family Code 271 ruling?

It depends on how the request is brought. A request for order filed before trial is usually heard within 60 to 90 days of filing, though crowded court calendars can stretch that. A section 271 request brought at trial gets decided when the trial concludes. Post-judgment requests follow the same general timeline as any other post-judgment motion in your county.

Can I get Family Code 271 sanctions if my spouse hides assets?

Yes, and hiding assets is one of the clearer cases for sanctions. Concealing assets forces the other side to spend money on forensic accountants, depositions, and motions to compel that should never have been necessary. Judges take asset hiding seriously and often pair section 271 sanctions with other remedies under California's fiduciary duty laws. And Family Code 271 is not the only attorney fee punishment for hiding assets.

What kind of behavior triggers Family Code 271 sanctions?

Anything that frustrates settlement or runs up costs unreasonably. Common examples include refusing to produce documents, taking absurd positions in negotiation, filing meritless motions, lying in declarations, missing court dates or delaying them without good cause. The conduct does not have to be illegal, just unreasonable enough to inflate the other side's fees.

How much can the court order in Family Code 271 sanctions?

There is no cap. The amount is tied to the fees and costs the bad behavior actually caused, so a small dispute might result in a few thousand dollars while a pattern of obstruction across a long case can result in tens or even hundreds of thousands. The only real limit is that the sanction cannot be an unreasonable financial burden on the party paying it.

Does my spouse have to be wealthy for me to ask for Family Code 271 sanctions?

No. Section 271 is based on conduct, not wealth. Your spouse's financial situation matters only in the sense that the court will not impose a sanction that creates an unreasonable financial burden. A spouse with modest means can still be sanctioned. The amount just has to fit what they can reasonably absorb.

Can I get Family Code 271 sanctions and need-based attorney fees in the same case?

Yes, and many lawyers request both at the same time. Family Code 271 punishes bad behavior. Family Code 2030 and 2032 address financial disparity between the parties. The two requests serve different purposes and a judge can grant one, both, or neither depending on the facts.

Get advice on your specific situation

How much notice to give, what to put in it, whether to bring a section 271 request, how to defend against one, none of this is do-it-yourself territory. This article is not legal advice and you should not treat it as advice for your case. Talk to an experienced family law attorney who handles cases in your California county and has actually brought and defended section 271 sanctions requests. If your case is in Orange County, Los Angeles or San Diego, contact us for an affordable strategy session.