Ann L. Stoner

On a family law motion concerning the matrimonial home, the respondent sought an order for immediate partition and sale, while the applicant sought exclusive possession and a delay in listing the property until the end of the school year for the parties’ children.

The court accepted that exclusive possession would remain with the applicant pending sale but found insufficient evidence that selling the home during the school year would cause harm beyond ordinary disruption.

Both parties faced financial pressures and neither could buy out the other’s interest in the property.

Balancing the financial realities and the limited evidence regarding impact on the children, the court ordered the matrimonial home to be listed for sale immediately.

The applicant brought a motion seeking to attribute increased income to the respondent for purposes of increasing child and spousal support, alleging that income was being diverted through businesses operated with the respondent’s current spouse.

Evidence indicated the companies shared operations, facilities, and financial arrangements, raising concerns that corporate structures were being used to shield income.

The respondent argued the issue should be determined at trial and that interim attribution would be prejudicial.

The court held that interim orders are appropriate pending trial and found the respondent’s declared income inconsistent with his lifestyle and business arrangements.

The court attributed income of $120,000 and ordered interim child and spousal support increases, and awarded partial indemnity costs for a previous motion.

A costs endorsement in a family law matter involving custody and access disputes between biological parents.

The applicant father sought expanded access to the child, including overnight access, while the respondent mother opposed such expansion.

The court addressed costs for multiple motions heard on July 11, 2011, August 31, 2011, January 26, 2012, and April 3, 2012.

The mother was successful in opposing the father's motion for overnight access on January 26, 2012, and was awarded costs.

The court also addressed a wasted attendance on April 3, 2012, when the mother was unprepared to proceed with her disclosure motion.

The applicant father brought a motion to expand his access to his young child to include overnight and full weekend access, based on recommendations from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The respondent mother opposed the expansion pending trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the case did not fall into the rare or exceptional category warranting reliance on an assessor's recommendations before trial.

The court found significant deficiencies in the investigation and credibility concerns regarding the assessor's findings, and determined that the status quo should be maintained pending full trial.