The court dismissed the father’s requests for retroactive child-support repayment and for terminating spousal support, but granted declarations fixing when each child ceased to be a child of the marriage.
The court retroactively varied spousal support, found the respondent intentionally unemployed, and ordered ongoing support, with estate and expense orders.
Court found material change proven (payor income increase, changed s.7 expenses, household changes); payor failed to prove undue hardship under s.10; prospective child support set on 2023 income less union dues $69,155 -> monthly table $1,538 plus s.7 expenses $420 (total $1,958) payable in two equal installments monthly commencing July 1, 2024; retroactive child support of $24,666 awarded from July 1, 2019 due to payor's failure to disclose tax returns and blameworthy conduct, payable at $150/month (two installments of $75 on 1st and 15th) commencing July 1, 2024; health plan removal unresol…
The court granted a partial preservation order in a family support dispute, freezing $200,000 from home-sale proceeds pending further order or agreement.
In a family law dispute, the court added two corporations as respondents and ordered the respondent to pay $2,500 for failure to comply with disclosure obligations.
The court considered VAC disability benefits, pension income, and double recovery in a support review, awarding reduced spousal and retroactive child support.
Petitioner established entitlement to spousal support on compensatory and non-compensatory grounds due to long marriage, career interruption and current income disparity; income was not imputed for potential early access to locked-in pension because the superintendent's discretion and likely outcome could not be presumed and early withdrawal would be imprudent, but $1,500 annual income was imputed for unreported craft/furniture sales; having considered statutory factors and SSAGs, a monthly spousal support award of $900 was ordered retroactive to February 2022 until June 2028 (petitioner turn…
The appeal was dismissed because the motion judge correctly concluded that the appellant had repeatedly and seriously breached orders to pay support and to provide financial disclosure and that striking the pleadings as to financial matters was an appropriate and proportionate sanction given the extent and persistence of the non-compliance.
The court granted a renewed application for interim sale of a former family residence, finding the respondent could not secure sufficient financing to buy out the claimant.