4 total
Contractor awarded unpaid invoices and extras; owners awarded set-off for incomplete septic system work.
The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant property owners for unpaid invoices and extra work related to the installation of a septic system and backfilling of a dog kennel.
The defendants counterclaimed for deficiencies and incomplete work.
The court found that the plaintiff completed the backfill contract and was entitled to payment for it and for snow removal, but dismissed claims for other extras.
The court also allowed the defendants' counterclaim in part, awarding them $5,000 to complete the septic system.
After set-off, the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff $5,578.50.
Motion to remove defendant's lawyer for conflict of interest dismissed as tactical and unfounded.
The plaintiffs brought a motion to remove the defendant's lawyer of record, alleging a conflict of interest based on the lawyer's prior involvement in related litigation.
The court found that the lawyer had never met or received confidential information from the moving plaintiff, and that the motion was brought for tactical reasons.
Applying the bright line rule from McKercher, the court concluded there was no conflict of interest and dismissed the motion.
Motion to change support and exclusive possession dismissed for lack of material change.
The father brought a motion to change a final family law order seeking to reduce child support to reflect his current income, terminate spousal support, and compel the immediate sale of the matrimonial home.
The court considered whether a material change in circumstances had occurred since the original order, which had imputed income to the father and granted the mother exclusive possession of the home for a fixed period.
The court found that the father had not demonstrated reasonable efforts to obtain higher‑paying employment in his field and had failed to establish any material change in circumstances.
The court also found no basis to vary the order granting exclusive possession of the matrimonial home under the Family Law Act.
The motion to change was dismissed.
Temporary without prejudice spousal support varied to $850 per month; income not imputed to applicant.
The applicant brought a motion to vary a temporary without prejudice spousal support order, seeking an increase to $850 per month.
The respondent argued that the applicant had not established a material change in circumstances and that income should be imputed to her due to insufficient efforts to find employment.
The court held that the test for varying a temporary without prejudice order is a hearing de novo, not a substantial change in circumstances.
The court declined to impute income to the applicant, finding she had made reasonable efforts to retrain and seek employment given her circumstances.
The motion was granted, and temporary spousal support was increased to $850 per month.
