Falcone v. Fyke, s. H034104
Decision Date | 23 February 2012 |
Docket Number | H036368.,H035337,H034127,H034869,Nos. H034104,s. H034104 |
Citation | 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2398,138 Cal.Rptr.3d 44,203 Cal.App.4th 964,12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2231 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | In re MARRIAGE OF Richard FALCONE AND Kathey FYKE.Richard S. Falcone, Appellant, v. Kathey Fyke, Respondent. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
See Annot., Validity, Construction, and Application of State Vexatious Litigant Statutes (2009) 45 A.L.R.6th 493; Cal. Jur. 3d, Actions, § 54; Cal. Civil Practice (Thomson Reuters 2011) Procedure, §§ 15:46, 15:53; Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide: Family Law (The Rutter Group 2011) ¶ 16:235 (CAFAMILY Ch. 16-B); 11 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Husband and Wife, § 5; 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Actions, §§ 367, 368, 370.
Kathey Fyke, In pro. per.
Bernard N. Wolf, Law Offices of Bernard N. Wolf, San Francisco, Lynne Yates–Carter, Law Offices of Yates–Carter, San Jose, for Respondent Richard S. Falcone.
These are five more in propria persona appeals that we are considering together in the series of appeals or writ petitions filed in this court since 2005 by Kathey Fyke in her dissolution of marriage proceeding with Richard S. Falcone. Here, Kathey 1 challenges (1) a judgment distributing marital property (H034104), (2) a postjudgment order awarding attorney fees, costs, and sanctions against her (H034127), (3) a postjudgment order confirming an accounting and distributing funds (H034869), (4) a postjudgment order awarding sanctions against her for appealing an order awarding sanctions against her (H035337), and (5) a prejudgment order awarding sanctions against her for misconduct in her efforts to obtain a trial continuance (H036368). We reject the challenges and affirm the judgment and orders. We also find that Kathey is a vexatious litigant henceforth subject to a prefiling order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7. 2
H034104—THE JUDGMENT DISTRIBUTING MARITAL PROPERTY
During in limine proceedings before trial court judge Thomas William Cain, Kathey made a request for need-based attorney fees pursuant to Family Code section 2031, subdivision (b)(1), which allows that such a motion may be made orally, without notice, at the time of the hearing of the cause on the merits. The colloquy is as follows.
“THE COURT: The request is denied.
“THE COURT: The request is denied.
“THE COURT: Not timely.
“[Kathey]: To both of them?
“THE COURT: Yes, among other reasons.”
Also during the in limine proceedings, the trial court granted Richard's motion “to exclude testimony and documents as to any reimbursement claims that [Kathey] might have, and expenses, that based on failure to provide documentation in discovery for which she was ordered to produce, including characterization, valuation, division of assets, any reimbursement claims she might have or expenses, attorney's fees, health issues.” During the proceedings, it remarked: It observed: Concerning Richard's request for production of documents, the trial court asked Kathey “What else did you produce?” When Kathey replied that “I produced probably 25 [or 12] boxes of stuff,” the trial court asked Kathey “To whom did you provide these 12 boxes of documents?” Ultimately, Kathey replied: “I didn't give them to anybody....” The trial court also declined Kathey's request to consider a specific real estate appraisal after remarking that the case had been continued for reasons of Kathey's health and Kathey had obtained the real estate appraisal during the interim. It concluded:
The trial court finally noted that the parties had agreed to bifurcate the issue of attorney fees: To this, Kathey replied, “No.” She then added, “But with regards to that, I would like to do it in person, not just by paper.” The trial court then concluded: “Well, again, we can address the forum, but the concept being it's separated and we'll deal with it after the trial.”
The trial court conducted the trial in 2008 on August 13 through 15, 18 through 22, 25 through 27, and October 6 through 7. During trial and Kathey's testimony, the trial court reminded Kathey that the trial was scheduled to take two weeks Kathey nevertheless again objected to “the time limit of only one day.” She explained: The trial court then replied as follows: Kathey nevertheless continued to argue with the trial judge raising points such as “this is a case of abuse of ... power,” and “[Richard's] intent was to leave [her] without the funds to maintain her own attorney.” This argument takes up six pages of the reporter's transcript after which the trial court inquired, Kathey continued making her points motivating the trial court to ask, When Kathey did not address the property issues, the trial court commented: After the trial court stated “I don't even know what your basic position is as to any of the issues,” Kathey exclaimed,
The trial court rendered a proposed statement of decision, a statement of decision incorporating the proposed statement, and a judgment incorporating the statement. The judgment expresses the following.
“The issues that are addressed below are all matters that could have been resolved by the parties with even the least bit of cooperation on the part of [Kathey]. [¶] Although in contested matters there is generally fault to be found with both sides, in this matter, the relatively isolated shortcomings of [Richard] pale in comparison to [Kathey's] delay tactics; the lack of any ascertainable direction or remotely perceptible objective on her part as to any issue; the endless motions (most of which had been previously been repeatedly ruled upon); the virtually valueless and lengthy time-consuming cross-examination of each and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
L.A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Savannah R. (In re A.J.)
...would make it "'extraordinary, harsh, unjust, inequitable or which would result in absurdity.' [Citation.]" (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 964, 989.) As noted above, the exit order in this case stated: "In order for [m]other's visits to be liberalized, the Court ex......
-
Sharples v. Sharples (In re Oflinda), E056941
...In addition to the parties' financial resources, the court may consider the parties' trial tactics. (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 964, 975, 138 Cal.Rptr.3d 44; In re Marriage of Tharp (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1295, 1313–1314, 116 Cal.Rptr.3d 375.) “[T]he family cour......
-
Lesso v. Andrzejewski
...that live testimony by witnesses will be permitted." (People v. Johnson (2006) 38 Cal.4th 717, 730.) The court in In re Marriage of Falcone and Fyke (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 964 rejected appellant's contention that the trial court denied her due process because it heard her request for attorn......