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.