Martin C. Schulz

Following a motion to change where the father successfully obtained an earlier termination date for child support than the mother had agreed to, both parties sought costs.

The court found the father was the successful party, as he was forced to bring the motion and achieved a better result than the mother's position.

After considering the parties' offers to settle and the time spent, the court awarded the father costs of $3,000 on a partial indemnity basis, to be set off against any amounts he owed the mother.

Following a decision on a motion to change terminating the father's child support obligations, both parties sought costs.

The father sought full indemnity costs of $7,006, while the mother sought full indemnity costs of $4,902.72.

The court found the father was the successful party, as he obtained an earlier termination date than the mother had offered.

Considering the offers to settle and the time spent, the court awarded the father partial indemnity costs fixed at $3,000.

The respondent father brought a Motion to Change to terminate his child support obligations for the parties' adult daughter, who had completed her undergraduate degree in 2012 but continued to pursue a Master's degree and other studies while dealing with mental health issues.

The court applied the Menegaldo factors and found the daughter remained a child of the marriage until May 1, 2016, when she ceased full-time studies.

Applying the D.B.S. factors, the court granted a retroactive adjustment of child support back to May 1, 2016, with any overpayments to be credited against the father's outstanding debts to the mother.

Following a six-day family law trial regarding custody, access, residency, and equalization, both parties sought costs.

The applicant sought partial and substantial indemnity costs based on an unsigned offer to settle, while the respondent sought costs claiming he was the more successful party.

The court found that the applicant's unsigned offer did not comply with Rule 18(4) of the Family Law Rules.

Concluding that success at trial was almost equally divided, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The respondent mother brought a motion to find the applicant father in contempt and to strike his pleadings due to his failure to provide financial disclosure and his delay in paying the retainer for a court-ordered assessment of the children.

The court found that the father willfully breached multiple court orders, prejudicing the mother's ability to determine his income for support purposes and delaying the resolution of custody issues.

Applying the test for striking pleadings under Rule 14(23) of the Family Law Rules, the court struck the father's pleadings on the issues of equalization and support, allowing the mother to proceed to an uncontested hearing on those issues.

The court declined to strike his pleadings regarding custody and access in the best interests of the children.