The appellant appealed a motion judge's refusal to terminate his spousal support obligation following his retirement.
The appellant argued that $600,000 in dividends he received from a family corporation should have been treated as a return of capital rather than income, and that the motion judge demonstrated bias by comparing him to a 'Wall Street businessman'.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in treating the dividends as income for support purposes and concluding the judge's comments merely illustrated the different tax treatment of dividend income.
