Adina E. Schild

Following a trial regarding retroactive child and spousal support, both parties sought costs.

The applicant sought full recovery of $173,660 based on substantial success and offers to settle, while the respondent argued the parties should bear their own costs as she was the successful party.

The court found that success was divided, as the applicant was successful on many issues but failed on his core theory that he had overpaid the respondent.

The court also found the applicant's offers to settle did not entitle him to costs under Rule 24(12).

Ultimately, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant brought a motion to change a 2015 final order regarding child support, spousal support arrears, and section 7 expenses.

The court found that the applicant's transition from a law firm partner to a sole proprietor constituted a material change in circumstances, requiring a new method for calculating his income.

The court resolved disputes over the children's residential schedules, finding that the eldest child was not entitled to support during a gap year abroad, and adjusting support for the other children based on shared parenting and university attendance.

After accounting for the applicant's overpayments, section 7 expenses, and lost spousal support tax deductions, the court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $9,096.