L. Liquornik

The respondent mother moved to set aside a temporary order for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home and support, relying on Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules.

She alleged that the applicant father had committed fraud by failing to fully disclose his income.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the father knowingly or recklessly made false statements with wrongful intent, noting that temporary orders are based on evolving evidence and a different finding on a fuller record does not constitute fraud.

Following a trial, the respondent mother brought motions under Rule 25(19) to void or change the judgment, alleging the applicant father failed to satisfy disclosure obligations, the judgment contained errors regarding bank balances, and she should be the sole irrevocable beneficiary of his life insurance policy.

The court dismissed the motions, finding that Rule 25(19) does not permit re-litigation or correction of alleged errors in law or fact, which are matters for appeal.

The court also found no evidence of fraud and upheld the father's life insurance beneficiary designations.

The parties separated after a 22-year marriage.

The respondent sought an unequal division of net family property, alleging the applicant recklessly depleted family assets by investing heavily in a hedge fund that turned out to be a Ponzi scheme.

The court found the investments were made in good faith on professional advice and did not meet the threshold of unconscionability for an unequal division.

The court calculated the equalization payment owed by the respondent to the applicant.

The court also imputed income to both parties due to intentional underemployment and ordered the applicant to pay retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support.