Annie Yektaeian

The parties, parents of a nine-year-old child, engaged in a high-conflict family law trial regarding parenting and child support.

The applicant father sought sole decision-making and primary residence, alleging the respondent mother suffered from serious mental illnesses that impaired her parenting.

The mother sought sole decision-making and primary residence, arguing the father's persistent conflict caused the child's anxiety.

The court found no evidence of serious mental illness on the mother's part.

The court granted the mother primary residence and sole decision-making authority, with the father receiving parenting time three weekends out of four.

The court also ordered the father to pay table child support based on an imputed income of $25,000, and established a rigid parenting schedule and communication protocol to minimize conflict.

The applicant brought a motion within a family law application for equalization of net family property, seeking the partition and sale of a jointly owned property and the vesting of the respondent's corporate shares in her name.

The applicant argued these orders were necessary to preserve her entitlement to an equalization payment due to the respondent's depletion of assets and failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a sale would cause undue hardship to the respondent, who suffered from severe alcoholism, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate the necessity of the orders to secure her claim.

A non-depletion order was issued against the respondent.

The applicant sought an interest in the respondent's home based on resulting trust, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and joint family venture, as well as the return of personal property.

The court found no unjust enrichment or resulting trust, concluding that the applicant contributed nothing to the home's acquisition and that the parties' financial arrangements were mutually beneficial, with the applicant also benefiting from creditor protection.

The court emphasized the applicant's lack of credibility and inconsistent financial disclosure.

All claims were dismissed.

In a family law proceeding, the court considered whether costs should be ordered personally against a lawyer who formerly acted for the respondent spouse.

The lawyer failed to ensure the timely filing and service of the respondent’s Answer and related pleadings, despite having them signed, and made no meaningful follow-up after the opposing party initiated uncontested trial procedures.

This failure resulted in a final order being obtained and the respondent being excluded from the matrimonial home, necessitating further motions and new counsel.

Applying Family Law Rule 24(9), the court found that the lawyer’s conduct wasted costs and justified a personal costs order.

The lawyer was ordered to personally pay a portion of both parties’ costs.