The applicant sought temporary spousal support following a long-term marriage and the sale of the parties’ shared corporate interests in a real estate development business.
The respondent argued that support should not be ordered due to the applicant’s capital assets, alleged cohabitation with a wealthy partner, and claims that the corporate buyout constituted advance income that would create double recovery.
The court found that the parties were not in equal financial positions post-separation and rejected the argument that the applicant should rely on her partner or exhaust capital.
Pending trial and despite incomplete financial disclosure, the court fixed temporary incomes and applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to determine interim support.
Temporary spousal support of $10,000 per month was ordered retroactive to September 2013, with earlier retroactive support left for determination at trial.
