John H. Cunningham

The moving party (former wife) brought a motion to change a 2013 final order for spousal support, seeking a retroactive and prospective increase, reinstatement of medical benefits, and additional life insurance/pension security.

She argued a material change in circumstances based on her increased medical needs and the payor's increased post-separation income.

The court found no compensatory basis to share in the payor's post-separation income increases and no evidence of increased medical expenses.

However, the court held that the eroding effect of inflation on the recipient's fixed income constituted a material change.

The court ordered the spousal support to be indexed annually to the Consumer Price Index, retroactive only to the date of effective notice in May 2019.

All other claims were dismissed.

Following a motion to change and a three-day trial concerning termination of child support and contribution to post-secondary expenses, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant sought approximately $26,000 in costs, relying in part on an offer to settle and alleging disclosure failures by the respondent.

The court found mixed success on the child support issues but noted that the respondent was unsuccessful in seeking revival of spousal support.

Considering the principles governing costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the proportionality of the time claimed, and the significant income disparity between the parties, the court reduced the claim substantially.

The respondent was ordered to pay modest costs to the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion to change a prior family order seeking termination of child support obligations and related insurance obligations.

The respondent opposed termination for one child and sought ongoing spousal support, contribution to post‑secondary education costs, and medical expenses.

The court held that the respondent failed to establish a material change in circumstances required to revive previously time‑limited spousal support.

It determined when the adult child ceased and resumed being a “child of the marriage” while working and later returning to college.

The court also apportioned post‑secondary education expenses under s. 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and adjusted child support accordingly.