Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Page 3
Court of Appeal Evinces Exasperation Over Frivolous Appeal, Imposes Sanctions
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal yesterday imposed sanctions on an Irvine attorney, Richard P. Sullivan, and his client in the amount of $5,000, payable to the client’s ex-husband, and to the court for the costs of processing the appeal, also in the amount of $5,000, for a frivolous appeal. Acting Presiding Justice William W. Bedsworth wrote the opinion, in Marriage of Wintemute and Soltan, which was not certified for publication.
The introduction appears below.
This is the second appeal in this case. Soltans first appeal was from a judgment entered in June 2014 after she and her ex-husband, Eric Wintemute, had settled numerous issues of property division at the end of a month-long trial. Notwithstanding the comprehensive nature of the settlement agreement. Soltan wanted to keep on litigating. We affirmed the judgment, observing that *’[o]ne point is clear from the record. The settlement was a global one; there were no remaining issues.”1
Now Soltan has returned, after at least 10 more trial court hearings — hearings punctuated by remarks from the bench such as “absurd,” “unbelievable,” “delay and delay and delay,” “out of control,” “disingenuous” and “filled with inaccuracies” when referring to declarations filed under penalty of perjury, and thinly-veiled findings that Soltan and her counsel were lying. Soltan asks us to review both appealable and nonappealable issues, without even a nod toward the standards of review.
The notice of appeal identifies two postjudgment orders as requiring our scrutiny. One dealt with several issues. The second assessed sanctions against Soltan for failing to comply with a requirement of the June 2014 judgment.
We affirm the orders. Although Soltan has ignored the standards of appellate review for trial court orders, we cannot. The rulings she has identified on appeal — to the extent they are reviewable at all — are reviewed for substantial evidence or abuse of discretion. This record contains substantial evidence to support the rulings for which this is the correct standard, and we cannot find abuse of discretion anywhere.
Wintemute has requested sanctions against Soltan and her counsel for a frivolous appeal. After hearing argument on this subject, and in light of the record before us, we grant the motion.
Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company