The moving party sought to change a 2016 consent order for spousal support, arguing that his income had materially decreased due to a strike and the COVID-19 pandemic.
The responding party opposed the motion, noting her significant physical disabilities and that the original order was intended to equalize joint debt.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the income decrease was temporary and that the responding party's circumstances justified continued support.
Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the responding party.
