Lynn Ann Burgess

This decision addresses a 35-year marital history between Lana Morris and Joseph Morris, culminating in their separation and subsequent family law litigation.

The court resolves complex property, equalization, and tort claims, including the valuation and division of pensions, vehicles, and business assets, as well as claims for damages arising from domestic violence.

The court finds that the parties were not living separate and apart during the disputed years, includes the value of the NH pension in the equalization calculation, and awards general and aggravated damages for tortious conduct.

The court also grants a permanent restraining order and provides detailed directions on costs.

The applicant brought a motion seeking temporary spousal support and related relief.

After earlier endorsements, the parties sought clarification and the court considered whether it was functus officio and whether further evidence could be admitted.

The court held it was not functus because no formal order had been signed, but declined to admit additional evidence that existed or was reasonably discoverable at the time of the earlier endorsements.

The court clarified several income items relevant to the spousal support calculation and confirmed the respondent’s obligation to pay spousal support retroactive to the date of separation.

Following an earlier endorsement addressing issues in a Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines income calculation, counsel requested clarification on two additional income items.

The court determined that the applicant’s $25,000 RRSP withdrawal should be included in her income for spousal support purposes, distinguishing authority where such withdrawals had already been accounted for in property equalization.

However, the court declined to include a dividend amount reported on a prior tax return, finding the evidence suggested it was an anomalous transaction.

The court relied on admissible portions of an accountant’s letter as a business record but rejected opinion evidence on the ultimate issue.

The supplementary endorsement clarified how these items should be treated in calculating spousal support.

The applicant brought a motion for temporary spousal support along with ancillary relief including disclosure, life insurance maintenance, questioning of the respondent, and leave to amend the application.

The court addressed entitlement to spousal support on both compensatory and non‑compensatory bases following a relatively short marriage and disputed cohabitation period.

The court found entitlement only on a non‑compensatory basis, concluding that the applicant demonstrated economic need but that the evidence did not support compensatory entitlement.

In determining the appropriate Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines inputs, the court resolved disputes about income components, the length of cohabitation, and employment income figures.

Temporary support was ordered at the mid‑range of the SSAG calculation based on the court’s determined inputs.