Aaron Phypers Ordered to Pay Denise Richards $25,762 in Sanctions in Ongoing Divorce

Aaron Phypers must pay estranged wife Denise Richards $25,762 in sanctions.

Court filings show that $10,987 was imposed after Phypers failed to respond properly to written questions from Richards’ attorneys. A separate $14,775 sanction followed proceedings involving Richards’ request for a protective order, although the filing does not disclose the reason for that penalty or the agreement’s terms.

Phypers was ordered to pay the second amount within 10 days. He filed for divorce in July 2025 after nearly seven years of marriage.

“Sanctions are basically the court saying, ‘You didn’t play by the rules, and now there’s a consequence,’” said attorney Hannah Hembree Bell.

“Common triggers can include ignoring court orders, failing to turn over required documents or information, abusing the discovery process, causing unnecessary delays, or engaging in conduct that unnecessarily drives up the other side’s attorney’s fees,” she explained.

“It usually addresses specific behavior during the case — not who ultimately gets the house, support, custody, or other relief,” Bell added.

“A sanctions headline can sound dramatic, but a monetary sanction by itself does not tell you who is going to win a divorce,” said divorce attorney Jonathan Fields of Fields and Dennis LLP. “It means the court found a problem with particular conduct in the litigation.”

“When a judge starts imposing sanctions, it’s usually a sign that the court’s patience is wearing thin,” said Toss Spodek, Managing Partner at Spodek Law Group. “In a divorce this contentious, discovery missteps can quickly become costly and make an already ugly case even harder to control.”

Brian Kupferberg, associate attorney at Berkman Bottger Newman & Schein, said sanctions can “seriously damage a party’s credibility.”

“A judge will look more closely at what that person might be trying to hide by refusing to cooperate, a common occurrence in discovery disputes,” Kupferberg explained. “Noncompliance leading to sanctions tells the judge there may be problems with the person’s honesty, willingness to cooperate with the process, or respect for the court’s time and orders.”

Two motions seeking to compel Phypers to provide discovery responses remain unresolved. The judge continued both until December 2 and directed the parties to confer before filing a joint statement.

“A lawyer never wants a client developing a pattern where the court repeatedly has to order compliance,” Fields said. “Repeated problems can lead to escalating consequences and can also affect settlement dynamics, because both sides have to take into account the increasing cost and risk of continuing down the same path.”