2 total
Court imputes income to payor and varies spousal and child support.
The moving party sought to vary a 2006 consent order by terminating spousal support and reducing child support based on an alleged decrease in income following job loss.
The court found the moving party had not made bona fide efforts to obtain comparable employment and imputed income of $75,000 to him.
Income of $20,000 for 2013 and $55,000 thereafter was attributed to the responding party, taking into account health challenges, delayed career establishment, and primary caregiving responsibilities.
Spousal support was reduced for 2013 and then converted to a nominal order of $1 annually until December 31, 2018 to allow potential future variation.
Child support was recalculated based on the imputed income and the child’s university attendance, with additional contributions ordered toward post‑secondary expenses.
Settlement enforced after party affirmed agreement through conduct despite changed business circumstances.
The respondent brought a motion to enforce a settlement arising from family and related civil proceedings concerning the parties’ jointly owned business.
The moving party had accepted an offer to settle shortly after a major customer issued a notice terminating its business relationship, which allegedly significantly reduced the value of the company.
The responding party argued that the offer was no longer capable of acceptance or that enforcement would be unfair and unconscionable due to the business’s diminished value and alleged bad faith.
The court held that the responding party affirmed the settlement through post‑acceptance conduct, including excluding the other party from the business and proceeding as if the agreement existed.
The settlement was therefore enforceable and not unjust or unconscionable in the circumstances.
