Margarit Jo

The appellant mother appealed an enforcement order that granted the respondent father final decision-making authority over their son's medical care and imposed fines on the mother for missed parenting time.

The Divisional Court found that while the motion judge had jurisdiction to make a substantive remedial order under rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules to address the child's crisis, it was an error to make the order final rather than temporary pending a motion to change.

The appeal was allowed in part, varying the order to be temporary and capping the accrued fines at $1,000.

The applicant wife and respondent husband brought cross-motions for the release of funds held in trust from the sale of their jointly owned matrimonial home and commercial property.

The applicant sought $1.5 million and an order that the balance remain in trust pending final equalization, while the respondent sought an equal distribution of the funds.

The court ordered $1.5 million released to the applicant, $1.25 million held in trust to secure potential equalization payments, and the balance released to the respondent.

The court also ordered the respondent to produce an original promissory note allegedly evidencing a $500,000 loan from his late father.

Following a motion for interim spousal support and disbursements, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The applicant sought full-indemnity costs of $57,457.39, alleging bad faith by the respondent for failing to provide timely financial disclosure.

The court found the applicant was the more successful party and that the respondent exhibited an element of bad faith regarding financial disclosure.

The court awarded the applicant costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixed at $46,000.

The applicant wife brought a motion for interim spousal support and interim disbursements.

The parties were in a six-year marriage and the respondent husband is a high-income earner residing in Germany with significant wealth.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines for high-income earners, imputing an annual investment income of over $4 million to the respondent based on a 12.3% rate of return.

The court ordered the respondent to pay a lump-sum of $326,315 in uncharacterized interim spousal support and $186,000 in interim disbursements, noting the latter had already been satisfied by a prior without-prejudice payment.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the motion judge dated July 30, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.

The applicant mother sought to relocate the children's residence to Texas.

The respondent father brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the application, arguing that the parties' separation agreement strictly prohibited relocation for seven years.

The court interpreted the separation agreement and found it permitted relocation with consent or a court order, meaning there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the children's best interests.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion but stayed the application, ordering the parties to proceed to arbitration pursuant to the dispute resolution clause in the separation agreement.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order allowing the parties' three children to travel to Texas for her parenting time during the Christmas holidays.

The respondent father opposed the motion, citing a recent consent order precluding international travel without a quarantine exemption, and the health risks and school disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the consent order was determinative and that, in any event, the proposed travel and subsequent quarantine were not in the children's best interests.