1

Filed 8/11/23 Marriage of Cole CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re MARRIAGE of KIKIANNE and 

SCOTT COLE.

___________________________________

KIKIANNE COLE,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

SCOTT COLE,

Respondent.

 

 A162601

 (Contra Costa County

 Super. Ct. No. D12-03933)

This appeal arises from a family law proceeding involving former 

spouses Kikianne Cole and Scott Cole.1 Kikianne contends the trial court 

abused its discretion in awarding Scott $6,000 in sanctions pursuant to 

section 271 of the Family Code.2 We will affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

We limit the background to the facts relevant to this appeal.

1 Because the parties share the same last name, we will refer to them by 

their first names for the sake of clarity and intend no disrespect.

2 All further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise 

specified.
2

In January 2021, Scott filed a motion to compel Kikianne’s attendance 

at a deposition, citing the failure of Kikianne’s counsel to agree to a 

rescheduled date after having received a continuance of a properly noticed 

deposition. Scott also requested $10,000 in attorney fees and costs as a 

sanction that is “just and reasonable under the circumstances.” However, 

Scott’s briefing did not cite section 271 as a basis for the sanctions.

Kikianne filed an opposition to Scott’s motion, disputing Scott’s claim 

that her deposition had been properly noticed. Thus, she contended, her 

counsel’s conduct was not wrongful and did not warrant sanctions. 

The court held a hearing and granted Scott’s motion to compel and 

request for sanctions. As relevant here, the court indicated satisfaction with 

Scott’s offer of proof regarding his request for attorney fees and costs as

sanctions. Accordingly, it ordered Kikianne to pay $3,924 pursuant to Code 

of Civil Procedure sections 2023.010 and 2023.030 and to pay further 

sanctions in the amount of $6,000 pursuant to section 271. 

Kikianne appealed.

DISCUSSION

Section 271 permits a trial court to impose an award of attorney fees 

and costs as a sanction where the conduct of a party or their counsel

“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.” (§ 271, subd. (a); see Featherstone v. 

Martinez (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 775, 783.) Notice and an opportunity to be 

heard must be provided to the party against whom the sanction is proposed. 

(§ 271, subd. (b).) An award of sanctions under section 271 is reviewed for 

abuse of discretion and will be overturned “ ‘only if, considering all of the 

evidence viewed most favorably in its support and indulging all reasonable 
3

inferences in its favor, no judge could reasonably make the order.’ ” (In re 

Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 964, 995.)

On appeal, Kikianne no longer disputes whether her counsel’s conduct 

warranted sanctions. Instead, she argues the trial court abused its discretion 

in making the $6,000 award because (1) she was not given the requisite 

notice under section 271 and (2) sanctions under section 271 are limited to 

attorney fees and costs, and here she claims the $6,000 award was not 

tethered to attorney fees and costs.

As a preliminary matter, we note Kikianne’s opening brief fails to 

substantially comply with court rules requiring accurate citations to the 

record to support her factual assertions. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule

8.204(a)(1)(C).) Not only are record citations largely missing, but one 

document in the appellate record—to which Kikianne does not cite—

contradicts the assertion in her opening brief that the court’s minute order

did not include an award of $6,000 as sanctions under section 271. 

In any event, a party may be found to have forfeited review of 

contentions that were not raised in the proceedings below. For example, in In 

re Marriage of Petropoulos (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 161, a wife claimed the 

family court denied her an adequate opportunity to be heard on section 271 

sanctions by not conducting a separate hearing. Petropoulos held the wife 

had forfeited that claim because she failed to request a separate hearing and 

instead acquiesced in the court’s briefing schedule for written submissions on 

sanctions issue; she also failed to move for reconsideration or for a new trial 

on the issue. (Id. at p. 179; see In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke, supra, 203 

Cal.App.4th at pp. 983–984 [by not objecting at beginning of trial, party 

forfeited claim that all-purpose family court judge, and not the civil court 

judge, should have heard issue of attorney fees and sanctions]; see also 
4

Jansen Associates, Inc. v. Codercard, Inc. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 1166, 1170 

[attorney sanctioned under Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5 waived issue of 

inadequate statutory notice by failing to raise the issue during hearing, 

failing to request a further hearing, and failing to move for reconsideration].) 

Here, the record establishes that Kikianne failed to raise her present 

contentions when she had the opportunity to do so in the proceedings below.

True, Kikianne is correct that Scott’s written briefing did not 

specifically cite section 271 as a basis for his sanctions request. However, 

Scott’s briefing did in fact request $10,000 as sanctions for Kikianne’s 

“subversive and deliberately confusing tactics,” which had cost him 

“thousands of dollars in back and forth correspondence” and other attorney 

services. 

Moreover, the arguments at the court hearing made crystal clear that 

Scott was seeking sanctions under section 271. When Scott’s attorney

expressly argued for section 271 sanctions in the amount of $6,000, the court 

questioned whether it had authority to award something more than the 

attorney fees and costs already incurred (i.e., $3,924). Scott’s attorney 

clarified that the $6,000 in sanctions were being sought as attorney fees and 

costs, and she cited a case for the proposition that a section 271 sanction does 

“not have to be tethered to the actual number of hours or the amount of fees 

and costs incurred.” The trial court then invited a response from Kikianne’s 

attorney, who argued that the sanctions would be “totally inappropriate” 

because he and Kikianne did “nothing . . . to frustrate the policy of the law to 

encourage settlement or encourage cooperation.” Kikianne’s attorney made 

no objection on grounds of inadequate notice and made no contention that the 

request for $6,000 in sanctions went beyond the scope of attorney fees and 
5

costs authorized by section 271. Nor did he request a further hearing on the 

matter or move for reconsideration of the issue. 

We note our agreement with Kikianne that section 271 does not 

authorize an award of sums that are not tethered to attorney fees and costs. 

(Sagonowsky v. Kekoa (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1142, 1144, 1153.) But here, the 

transcript of the hearing and the trial court’s statements and order on the 

matter are unclear as to whether and to what extent the $6,000 award was 

based on attorney fees and costs. Because Kikianne had the opportunity to 

clarify these matters in the proceedings below but did not, application of the 

forfeiture doctrine appears particularly appropriate.

In sum, Kikianne’s failure to raise her contentions to the trial court at 

the hearing or at any other point forfeits their review on appeal.

DISPOSITION

The order awarding Scott $6,000 in sanctions pursuant to section 271 is 

affirmed. Scott is entitled to his costs on appeal.

_________________________

Fujisaki, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Tucher, P.J.

_________________________

Rodríguez, J.

Cole v. Cole (A162601)