On July 20, 2015, William filed an ex parte application asking the court to confirm its 2013 order that the funds for Polin’s lien remain in escrow. William stated that Polin was attempting to have her lien on sale” based on the argument “paid that the judgment of dissolution superseded the court’s 2013 order that those funds remain in escrow. William also asked the court to order Polin to release the lien so that escrow could close. At the hearing, both DeCarolis and Polin represented to the court that Polin’s lien was another case” and did not “from out of this family law case.” In addition, when the court “aris[e] inquired how Polin’s lien into this case,” DeCarolis and “g[ot] Polin conceded that the Polin lien have.” However, “shouldn’t Polin argued that because court made an order in the “the judgment with regard to liens,” the validity of the liens had been litigated. She further argued that William could no longer challenge the liens because the judgment was final. The court expressed concern as to whether it had jurisdiction to rule on a lien that arose out of another case. The court ultimately denied the application, referring to it as an to expunge his lien.” William responded that the “attempt application was, in fact, about whether the money is held “purely in escrow.” The court then stated think the judgment trumps “I the interim orders that I made,” appearing to indicate that the 2013 order that Polin’s funds be held in escrow was no longer in effect. DeCarolis and Polin Move for Sanctions On July 23, 2015, DeCarolis and Polin moved for sanctions against William under Family Code section 271, Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a), and California Rules of Court, rule 5.14. They argued that William had brought
On July 20, 2015, William filed an ex parte application asking the court to confirm its 2013 order that the funds for Polin’s lien remain in escrow. William stated that Polin was attempting to have her lien “paid on sale” based on the argument that the judgment of dissolution superseded the court’s 2013 order that those funds remain in escrow. William also asked the court to order Polin to release the lien so that escrow could close. At the hearing, both DeCarolis and Polin represented to the court that Polin’s lien was “from another case” and did not “aris[e] out of this family law case.” In addition, when the court inquired how Polin’s lien “g[ot] into this case,” DeCarolis and Polin conceded that the Polin lien “shouldn’t have.” However, Polin argued that because “the court made an order in the judgment with regard to liens,” the validity of the liens had been litigated. She further argued that William could no longer challenge the liens because the judgment was final. The court expressed concern as to whether it had jurisdiction to rule on a lien that arose out of another case. The court ultimately denied the application, referring to it as an “attempt to expunge his lien.” William responded that the application was, in fact, “purely about whether the money is held in escrow.” The court then stated “I think the judgment trumps the interim orders that I made,” appearing to indicate that the 2013 order that Polin’s funds be held in escrow was no longer in effect. DeCarolis and Polin Move for Sanctions On July 23, 2015, DeCarolis and Polin moved for sanctions against William under Family Code section 271, Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a), and California Rules of Court, rule 5.14. They argued that William had brought
B269311.DOCX