2 total
Retirement justified phased reduction of long‑term spousal support rather than immediate termination.
The moving party sought termination of long‑standing spousal support and cancellation of a life insurance policy securing the support obligation following retirement and a significant reduction in income.
The responding party argued there had been no material change in circumstances and relied on the compensatory basis of support arising from her role as primary caregiver during the marriage.
The court held that the combination of retirement, reduced income, and ongoing responsibilities toward children from the moving party’s subsequent marriage constituted a material change in circumstances.
However, immediate termination of support was not appropriate given the responding party’s financial circumstances and the length of time support had been paid.
The court ordered a gradual reduction in spousal support over several years, after which support would cease, and required the insurance policy to remain in place until the support obligation ended.
Appeal allowed in part to strike an $8,000 payment based on a vague post-separation letter.
The appellant husband appealed a trial judgment granting corollary relief to the respondent wife.
The trial judge had ordered the husband to pay child support for the wife's child, a compensatory sum for property improvements, and $8,000 based on a post-separation letter promising financial help.
The Court of Appeal upheld the child support and compensatory sum, and dismissed the husband's new claim for occupation rent.
However, the Court allowed the appeal in part to strike the $8,000 payment, finding the letter was not a valid domestic contract, was too vague, and its conditions were unmet.
