On competing family law motions, the parties sought orders concerning income imputation, child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and financial restraints.
The court considered evidence regarding the respondent’s business income, rental income, and debt levels, including an expert financial analysis report, and rejected the applicant’s argument that significant undisclosed cash income should be attributed.
The court accepted the expert analysis and imputed annual income to the respondent of $26,000 for child support purposes, while declining to impute income to the applicant due to her primary caregiving responsibilities for a child with significant developmental needs, though noting she retained some earning capacity.
Child support was fixed at the Guideline table amount based on the respondent’s income, modest spousal support was ordered, and the respondent was required to temporarily continue vehicle-related payments.
Additional orders addressed section 7 expense sharing, release of trust funds to the respondent, and a non‑dissipation order restraining the applicant from further encumbering equity in her property pending resolution of equalization.