Melissa M. Young

The court considered competing motions regarding the matrimonial home: the respondent sought exclusive possession and a transfer of the home into his name, while the applicant sought partition and sale under the Partition Act.

The court found that both motions were, in substance, for final relief and analyzed them accordingly.

The court held that the respondent had not established grounds for exclusive possession or for a transfer of the home, and that the applicant was entitled to an order for sale, but not exclusive control of the sale process.

Directions were given for the sale and for the holding of proceeds in trust.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought to set aside a separation agreement, address child support for their biological child, and parenting time.

The respondent cross-claimed to set aside the agreement and sought child support for all three children (one biological, two from previous relationships) and extended benefits.

The court ordered temporary child support and benefits for the biological child, and deferred the issue of child support for the step-children to a long motion or trial due to contested facts regarding in loco parentis status and the involvement of biological fathers.

The court also ordered both parties to facilitate the biological child's extra-curricular activities.

The respondent sought a temporary parenting time order accommodating his two-week on/two-week off work schedule and an order for child support.

The applicant opposed, citing her primary caregiver role, the "7-day rule" for young children, and disagreements over healthcare.

The court dismissed the applicant's objections, finding them insufficient.

The court granted the respondent's request for parenting time, with a minor adjustment for the applicant, and ordered child support as per the Guidelines.

The parties were also ordered to communicate via a specific application.

The parties, Jennifer Dunford (Applicant) and Tyler Dunford (Respondent), separated in 2020.

A consent order in July 2022 set child support.

The Respondent moved to reduce child support based on a new, lower-paying job.

The Applicant cross-moved to adjust child support based on 2022 incomes and for interim spousal support.

The court addressed a procedural issue, treating the child support motions as motions to change a final order and the spousal support motion as a temporary order request.

The court determined the Respondent's income for child support based on his current, lower salary, amending the previous order.

The Applicant's motion for interim spousal support was dismissed, as she did not establish a prima facie case for relief.

The applicant sought a temporary parenting time order, specifically that the respondent's parenting time be only in accordance with the children's wishes.

The court had previously ordered specific parenting times, which the children refused.

The children's counsel argued the court erred by prioritizing "maximum contact" over the children's well-being and showed predisposition.

The court rejected these arguments, affirming the statutory presumption of continuing parental contact, but expressed concern about the children's anxiety and the mother's potential influence.

Reluctantly, the court ordered no further parenting time for the moment, emphasizing it was temporary and without prejudice, and encouraged exploration of reunification therapy.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion where the applicant was awarded temporary spousal support.

The applicant sought $4,470.85 in costs, while the respondent sought $8,391.

The court found the applicant to be the more successful party in the underlying motion, as she obtained spousal support despite seeking a higher amount, and the respondent's counter-proposals were not adopted.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments of bad faith against the respondent.

Considering the reasonableness and proportionality of the parties' conduct and offers to settle, the court noted that both parties' offers were far from the ultimate award.

The applicant's costs were reduced to reflect the discrepancy between her initial request and the final outcome.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $3,500 in costs, all-inclusive.

The applicant wife sought temporary spousal support based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAGs).

Entitlement was conceded by the respondent husband, but quantum was disputed.

The court found the SSAGs inappropriate due to the unknown income of the high-earning respondent and the potential for a radically different lifestyle for the applicant.

The court imputed no income to the applicant temporarily due to mental health issues but considered her actual needs and pre-separation lifestyle.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $8,500 per month in temporary spousal support, an increase from the $5,000 voluntarily paid but significantly less than the SSAGs suggested.