Carole Redmond

The responding party successfully defended a written motion and sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The moving party argued for nominal costs due to the responding party's alleged disregard for court rules.

The court found no basis for full indemnity costs and noted that the responding party's verbal offer to settle did not comply with Rule 49.

Applying the principles of proportionality, fairness, and reasonableness, the court awarded the responding party partial indemnity costs of $10,500 inclusive of disbursements.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to amend a previous order to include the issuance of a new writ of seizure and sale *nunc pro tunc*, or alternatively, leave to issue an alias writ.

The original writ had expired in 2013, and a 2014 order for renewal was not properly implemented due to counsel's oversight, which was not discovered until 2019.

The defendant, Timothy Murray, opposed the motion, arguing that he would suffer irreparable prejudice due to significant changes in his financial and legal status over the 13 years since the judgment, having reasonably assumed the plaintiff had abandoned the claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant had detrimentally changed his position in reliance on the plaintiff's inaction, and that granting the relief would cause great prejudice.