The parties brought cross-motions to vary a 2007 consent support order addressing child support, spousal support, and the sharing of postsecondary expenses.
The court found the respondent intentionally underemployed and imputed full‑time income based on her previous salary.
Applying principles governing entitlement to share in post‑separation income increases, the court held that the respondent had not established compensatory entitlement to benefit from the applicant’s increased earnings.
The court rejected the respondent’s claim for retroactive and increased future spousal support.
The consent order was varied to adjust child support and allocate expenses proportionate to the parties’ incomes while leaving spousal support unchanged.
