Monday, March 16, 2026
Page 3
Family Court Judge Wrongly Sanctioned Party for Faith-Based Refusal to Agree to Amend—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Three of the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that a trial judge erred in sanctioning a party $35,000 for refusing to stipulate to an amendment that would allow his wife to transform her petition for legal separation into a dissolution of marriage request when he insisted that his stance was based on sincere beliefs about marriage as a practicing member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses faith.
The sanctions were imposed under Family Code §271, which provides:
“[T]he court may base an award of attorney’s fees and costs on the extent to which any 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. An award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to this section is in the nature of a sanction.”
Justice Maurice Sanchez authored the decision, filed Feb. 17 and certified for publication late Thursday, saying:
“[The trial court abused its discretion…by imposing monetary sanctions against Michael for not stipulating to permit Marcie to amend her petition for legal separation by converting it into one for marital dissolution. Stipulating by its nature is not obligatory. Michael expressed what he believed to be a ‘conscientious’ reason for declining to stipulate: Due to his religious beliefs, he was not comfortable with ‘facilitating’ a divorce. Whether or not that reason amounts to a legitimate claim under the federal constitution’s free exercise of religion clause is a question we need not decide. Michael’s concern was reasonable and, it appears to us, held in good faith.”
Acting Presiding Justice Joanne Motoike and Justice Eileen C. Moore joined in the opinion.
Other sanctions totaling $16,000, which were imposed against the husband under Code of Civil Procedure §§2023.030 and 2031.310(h) for discovery abuses, were upheld.
The case is In re Marriage of Hoch, 2026 S.O.S. 661.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company