On these facts, a mid-case contempt dismissal was not a “judgment” starting the rule 3.1702 fee-motion clock
When does the rule 3.1702 deadline for a fee motion start to run? In Arora v. Arora, the Fourth District, Division One, held that, under the circumstances of the case, an order dismissing a contempt affidavit filed in an ongoing dissolution case was not a final “judgment” under rule 3.1702(b). A Family Code section 271 sanctions motion filed 338 days later was not untimely, and the $50,000 award was affirmed.
What happened in Arora
In June 2022, the husband and wife filed cross-petitions for dissolution and competing requests for domestic violence restraining orders. The court granted a temporary restraining order for the wife that day. At a July 2023 hearing, it entered a permanent restraining order for her and also considered multiple allegations that the husband had violated the temporary order. It entered a statement of decision about two months later.
Three days after that decision, the wife filed an order to show cause and an affidavit of contempt alleging the same violations the court had already heard. After a trial, the court found the husband not guilty of contempt, and the contempt affidavit was dismissed by order on February 28, 2024. The wife also moved for sanctions and sought a subpoena for the husband’s communications.
In January 2025, the husband moved for sanctions under Family Code section 271. The trial court, Judge Sharon L. Kalemkiarian of San Diego County Superior Court, awarded him $50,000 “for conduct which has impeded resolution of issues in the case, including the bringing of the contempt action.” The wife appealed.
Can a party who loses a contempt case be sanctioned under Family Code section 271?
Yes. The wife argued that Code of Civil Procedure section 1218, subdivision (a), which lets only the party who brings a successful contempt proceeding recover fees, barred any contempt-related award to the husband. Reviewing the question of statutory authority de novo, the court disagreed. It concluded that “the two provisions can be harmonized and can operate concurrently in furtherance of their separate purposes.” Section 1218 rewards a complainant who wins a contempt claim. Section 271 punishes conduct that frustrates settlement and raises the cost of litigation. Drawing on Gamo v. Merrell, the court explained:
“Because Family Code section 271 sanctions are entirely unrelated to whether a party prevails, and neither rewards a prevailing party nor punishes a losing party, they do not interfere with the purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 1218, subdivision (a)’s unilateral fee provision.”
When does the rule 3.1702 deadline for a fee motion start?
This is the procedural core of the case. Under rule 3.1702(b), a motion for fees for services up to the rendition of judgment must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under rules 8.104 and 8.108. The opinion notes that the rule’s timing requirements apply to section 271 requests in family law cases. The wife treated the February 28, 2024 dismissal order as the “judgment” and argued that the motion, filed 338 days later, was too late.
Reviewing the meaning of the rule de novo, the court relied on Carpenter v. Jack in the Box Corp., which read “judgment” in rule 3.1702 to mean the final judgment at the end of the litigation, not any prejudgment order that might be appealable. Under the circumstances of this case, the dismissal order did not resolve the litigation: the parties kept litigating custody and visitation, which, according to the register of actions, appear to have been resolved by a judgment entered on November 26, 2024. The court also rejected the argument that the contempt was a separate parallel proceeding with its own judgment, because it was filed in the ongoing family law case and tied to the custody litigation. In the court’s words, the order dismissing contempt “cannot reasonably be characterized as a final judgment that disposed of all issues between the parties.” It added: “To agree with Wife would result in the type of piecemeal litigation that the drafters of rule 3.1702 sought to avoid.”
Because it resolved the timing issue this way, the court did not decide the wife’s further argument that the trial court erred in reasoning that rule 3.1702 did not apply because contempt proceedings are criminal in nature.
Arguments forfeited for lack of authority or explanation
Each side lost an argument to forfeiture. The husband urged the court to uphold the award as supported by fees unrelated to the contempt, including the cost of the sanctions motion itself. He cited no authority that a section 271 award necessarily includes those costs, and the court held: “Absent citation to persuasive authority, this argument is forfeited.” The wife argued that a section 271 award conflicts with the mandatory prevailing-party fee policy of Family Code section 6344, but she did not explain how those policies required reversal, and the court deemed that argument forfeited as well. Both rulings rested on Badie v. Bank of America.
What the court decided
“The order is affirmed. Husband is awarded costs on appeal.” The opinion was filed September 28, 2026 and certified for publication on October 22, 2026. Justice Bermúdez wrote for the panel, joined by Acting Presiding Justice Castillo and Justice Rubin.
Because rule 3.1702(b) borrows the notice-of-appeal deadlines, the trigger matters as much here as it does for an appeal; see our notes on appeal deadlines and calculating an appeal deadline, and our appellate practice.
Key takeaways
- Family Code section 271 sanctions and the one-way contempt fee provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 1218, subdivision (a) can operate together, so a party who loses a contempt proceeding may still be sanctioned for pursuing it.
- Under rule 3.1702(b), “judgment” means the final judgment at the end of the litigation, and on the facts here, an order dismissing a contempt affidavit while custody issues remained pending was not that judgment.
- The section 271 motion filed 338 days after the contempt dismissal was not untimely, and the $50,000 award was affirmed.
- An appellate argument made without supporting authority or explanation can be deemed forfeited, and here one argument on each side was.
Why appeals like this one need an appellate lawyer
Arora turned on two questions that look simple and are not. The first was which order starts the clock. Rule 3.1702(b) ties fee motions to the notice-of-appeal deadlines, so the answer depends on what counts as a “judgment.” Measure from the wrong order and the deadline looks like it passed months before it did, or seems open after it has closed. Here the wife built her timeliness argument on the February 2024 dismissal, and the court held that order was not the judgment.
The second was whether an argument was presented in a form the court would decide. The husband’s alternative ground for the award and the wife’s section 6344 argument were each held forfeited because they were not supported with authority or explained.
An appellate lawyer identifies the true trigger for every deadline, preserves each argument with the authority behind it, and frames the standard of review the court will apply. If a fee motion, sanctions order or interim ruling is in play, talk to an appellate lawyer early, before a deadline runs or an argument is lost.
What this post is not. This post is attorney advertising and general information about a court decision. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts and record, and appellate deadlines are short and often jurisdictional — talk to appellate counsel about your case promptly.
Facing a ruling you may need to appeal or challenge by writ? Yisrael Gelb · yisrael@gelblawapc.com · (323) 632-6864