Linda I. Sapiano

Following a successful application to enforce a settlement, the applicants sought costs against the respondent executor and the estate.

The court awarded full indemnity costs, including pre-judgment interest, to the applicants, finding their actual costs of $24,549.29 to be proven, reasonable, and foreseeable.

The decision detailed the distribution of estate funds, prioritizing the settlement payments, pre-judgment interest, and costs to the applicants over the respondent's residual entitlement.

Following a two‑day motion concerning spousal support, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The applicant was successful on key issues including retroactive support and disclosure, and the respondent had failed to provide timely financial and medical disclosure and unilaterally terminated support payments.

Although the applicant argued that her earlier offer to settle triggered full‑recovery costs under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, the court held that the offer did not strictly meet the rule’s requirements.

Nevertheless, the offer was found to be a genuine effort to settle and relevant under Rule 18(16).

Considering the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including success, reasonableness of positions, and the respondent’s litigation conduct, the court ordered substantial indemnity costs.

The respondent husband brought a motion to change a 2008 final order to terminate his spousal support obligation after he retired for health reasons.

The applicant wife brought a cross-motion for a retroactive increase in spousal support, discovering that the husband had obtained new employment shortly after the 2008 order and earned significantly more income than he had disclosed for several years.

The court found that the husband's failure to disclose his increased income constituted a material change in circumstances warranting a retroactive increase.

The court ordered the husband to pay $34,000 in retroactive spousal support.

However, accepting that the husband had validly retired and currently lacked the ability to pay, the court reduced ongoing spousal support to zero effective January 2015.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking to terminate child support for his three children and retroactively reduce his support obligations due to job loss and health issues.

The court found a material change in circumstances, terminating support for the eldest child who was no longer a 'child of the marriage' and reducing support for the other two children based on the father's imputed income.

However, the court denied the father's request for a retroactive reduction prior to the date he filed his motion, noting his failure to provide financial disclosure or address the issue promptly.

The court also adjudicated various section 7 extraordinary expenses claimed by the mother.