The parties brought competing interim family law motions following separation.
One spouse sought partition and sale of the matrimonial home despite the property being registered solely in the other spouse’s name, while the responding spouse sought to impute higher income to the payor for child and spousal support.
The court held that the applicant had not established any ownership interest sufficient to invoke the Partition Act or otherwise justify ordering an immediate sale of the home, particularly where a constructive trust claim had not yet been proven.
The court declined most of the alleged income adjustments but imputed income reflecting employment salary, consulting fees paid through a corporation, and a portion of employment benefits.
Interim child support, spousal support, and retroactive support were ordered based on the imputed income.
