Mark Greenstein

Following a family law motion concerning exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, conduct of sale, contempt, and striking of pleadings, the court addressed the issue of costs.

Although the moving party achieved partial success by obtaining exclusive possession and conduct of sale, her requests for contempt and striking of pleadings were dismissed, resulting in divided success.

The court nevertheless found the responding party had engaged in unreasonable conduct by failing to cooperate with the sale of the home despite a prior consent order, which necessitated the motion.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court awarded reduced costs to the moving party to reflect both the mixed result and the respondent’s conduct.

Following a family law trial, the court addressed costs between former spouses where the applicant had represented herself during the trial.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the reasonableness principles from Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the applicant was the clear victor on the main issue concerning contribution to a child’s medical school expenses.

The court confirmed that self‑represented litigants may receive a moderate allowance for time spent performing work normally done by counsel but not at full counsel rates.

The applicant’s claimed hourly rate and time estimates were significantly reduced and some disbursements were disallowed, including interest on funds borrowed to finance legal fees.

After considering partial success by the respondent on some issues and apportionment under Rule 24, the court fixed total costs payable to the applicant at $12,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The applicant sought a divorce, spousal support, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court dismissed the spousal support claim, finding no basis to impute income to the respondent and noting the applicant's disability pension had not yet terminated.

On child support, the court applied the Farden factors and determined that the eldest child attending medical school was no longer a child of the marriage, relieving the applicant from contributing to those expenses due to the family's modest means.

Retroactive and ongoing child support was ordered for the two younger children.

The court also ordered the equalization of net family property, making specific adjustments for post-separation expenses related to the respondent's exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate to Rome, Italy, with the parties' two children.

The parties were not separated but agreed to have the mobility issue determined first.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework, finding that the mother was the primary caregiver and that her professional and financial prospects, as well as her emotional well-being, would be significantly enhanced in Italy.

The court concluded that the benefits of the relocation outweighed the risks and disruptions, and granted the mother's application to relocate with the children.