Reported / Citable
Background
Claudia Martinez and Juan Camou married in 2004 and filed for dissolution in 2022. At issue from the start was a premarital agreement that Camou produced — written in Spanish — that could significantly affect the property division. At a March 2023 hearing, both sides agreed to bifurcate the trial: the court would first resolve the validity of the premarital agreement as a separate, threshold issue before proceeding to the rest of the dissolution.
California law gives parties a specific procedural right in bifurcated court trials: under European Beverage, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996), a party is entitled to have the same judge try all portions of a bifurcated case that depend on weighing evidence and credibility — unless the party waives that right. After stipulating to bifurcation in March 2023, Martinez’s counsel attended three more trial-setting conferences over the following months without ever raising the European Beverage issue. It was not until November 7, 2023 — nearly eight months later — that counsel declined to give a European Beverage waiver, only after the court had declined to transfer the case to a long-cause courtroom at a different judge’s department.
Camou sought $20,000 in Family Code section 271 sanctions, arguing that Martinez and her counsel had reneged on their bifurcation agreement and had engaged in forum shopping to delay the case. The trial court agreed, imposed the sanctions, and allowed them to be paid in installments deducted from Martinez’s monthly spousal support. Martinez appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District Court of Appeal (Division Two) affirmed the sanctions order. The court announced a new rule: parties in dissolution cases have an affirmative obligation to invoke their European Beverage rights in a timely manner — they cannot agree to bifurcation, participate in multiple trial-setting conferences, and then spring the issue months later as a tactical maneuver. This obligation flows from Family Code section 271, which requires a minimum level of professionalism and cooperation in family law litigation.
The court rejected Martinez’s argument that she had raised the issue at the “earliest opportunity” once the court declined to transfer the case to a long-cause department. The court of appeal agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that an attorney who had practiced family law in Los Angeles County for nearly 40 years could not credibly claim surprise that a European Beverage waiver is required in bifurcated proceedings — even in long-cause courts, because there is no guarantee the same judge would try the remaining issues. The court also held the trial court had good cause to skip a separate evidentiary hearing on sanctions, since the relevant conduct either occurred in open court or was documented in transcripts the court had already reviewed.
Key Takeaways
- Parties who stipulate to bifurcation in a dissolution case must raise any European Beverage objection at the earliest opportunity — silence across multiple trial-setting conferences will be treated as acquiescence.
- Waiting to invoke same-judge rights until the court rules against you on a separate procedural issue (e.g., declining to transfer to long cause) is gamesmanship, not a legitimate exercise of the right.
- Family Code section 271 sanctions are available for delay tactics in bifurcation disputes, even where the opposing party suffers no quantifiable out-of-pocket harm — the statute targets conduct that increases litigation costs, not just actual injury.
- Trial courts may decline an evidentiary hearing on section 271 sanctions when the relevant conduct occurred in court or is fully documented in the record — there is good cause to skip live testimony under those circumstances.
- Los Angeles family law practitioners should treat a European Beverage waiver as a standard agenda item the moment bifurcation is discussed — experience-level will be cited against any claim of surprise.
Why It Matters
This is a published decision that creates binding new procedural law for family law practitioners throughout California. It transforms what had previously been described as a party’s passive “right” under European Beverage into an affirmative duty to act promptly. The ruling will particularly affect high-volume dissolution courts like Los Angeles County, where judicial reassignments are frequent and bifurcation of threshold issues like premarital agreement validity is common.
For practitioners, the practical takeaway is clear: if you are stipulating to bifurcation — or simply not objecting when the court suggests it — you must decide on the spot whether to preserve your European Beverage rights and raise the issue immediately. Waiting to see which judge picks up the case before deciding whether to invoke the same-judge rule is now a sanctionable strategy. The case also reinforces that California’s family courts expect expeditious resolution of dissolution cases, and attorneys who manipulate procedural rules to delay proceedings face real financial consequences.