Frank A. Mendicino

The applicant brought a motion to strike the respondent's pleadings in his motion to change child support, or alternatively, for security for costs.

The applicant alleged the respondent failed to provide adequate financial disclosure and owed significant support arrears.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding the respondent had produced sufficient disclosure to proceed to trial and that triable issues existed.

The court also dismissed the request for security for costs, noting it would be extraordinary to order security against a party seeking relief due to an inability to pay support.

The appellant wife appealed an order setting aside final orders made at an uncontested trial regarding custody, access, and support.

The respondent husband's pleadings had previously been struck.

The motion judge set aside the final orders relying on Rule 15(14) of the Family Law Rules and the court's inherent jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that Rule 15(14) applies only to motions to change, not set aside, final orders.

The court further found that the stringent tests for setting aside a default judgment or invoking inherent jurisdiction were not met, and the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors regarding disclosure.