The appellant appealed a motion judge's order that reduced his spousal support obligations to $400 per month, arguing it should have been reduced to zero due to his unemployment and suspended driver's license.
The Divisional Court found the motion judge erred in ordering any support given the economic disparity and the appellant's unemployment.
The court reduced the ongoing support to zero as of November 2003, but declined to order retroactive repayment.
No costs were awarded.
