3 total
Successful respondent on support motion awarded $12,000 in costs, set off against his support arrears.
Following a successful motion by the respondent husband to suspend enforcement of support arrears and reduce ongoing support, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.
The respondent sought $16,353.36 in costs, arguing the applicant was unprepared, uncooperative, and unreasonable.
The applicant argued the respondent was uncooperative regarding a payment plan and was only partially successful.
The court found the respondent was the more successful party but reduced the requested amount to $12,000, ordering it to be set off against his support arrears owed to the applicant.
The court stayed enforcement of spousal support arrears and reduced ongoing support due to the payor's involuntary job loss and resulting financial hardship.
The respondent husband brought a motion to suspend enforcement of spousal support arrears and stay ongoing support obligations under a final order, citing a material change in circumstances due to job loss and significantly reduced income.
The court applied the Berta test, requiring a strong prima facie case, clear hardship, urgency, and clean hands.
The court found the husband met these criteria, noting his involuntary unemployment, reduced income, and the Family Responsibility Office's enforcement actions causing hardship.
The motion was granted, staying the Support Deduction Order and FRO enforcement of arrears, but an interim monthly payment of $1,500 was ordered from November 1, 2021.
The parties were directed to attend TBST Court to establish a timeline for the Motion to Change.
The court ordered a structured payment plan with committal terms for a payor who failed to rebut the presumption of ability to pay over $280,000 in support arrears.
The Director, Family Responsibility Office, sought to enforce a temporary support order for child and spousal support arrears totaling $286,423.06.
The payor disputed the payment orders, claiming inability to pay due to diminished income and assets, and that income was improperly imputed in the original order.
The court found the payor failed to rebut the presumption of ability to pay, did not provide full and frank financial disclosure, and willfully disregarded support obligations.
The court fixed the arrears and ordered a structured payment plan with committal terms for default, while also ordering ongoing support payments with committal terms.