The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's answer due to his failure to comply with an interim spousal support order and an interim costs order.
The respondent argued he was financially unable to comply, citing his retirement and depleted investments.
The court found the respondent's non-compliance to be willful, deliberate, and flagrant, noting his ability to pay for a luxury vehicle lease buyout while claiming poverty.
The court ordered the respondent's answer struck, except for the claim for divorce, but granted a time-limited stay to allow him a final opportunity to pay the full arrears.
