Following a family law judgment, the parties were unable to settle the wording of the final order concerning life insurance security.
The respondent agreed to maintain a $1 million life insurance policy naming the applicant as beneficiary but argued it should secure only the equalization payment.
The applicant argued the insurance should also secure spousal support obligations.
The court reviewed its notes and determined it had intended the policy to secure both equalization and spousal support obligations, and amended the earlier order under Rule 25(19)(b)(c) of the Family Law Rules to reflect that intention while preventing a windfall.
