Peter Howie

The self-represented moving party sought review of a motion judge's decision dismissing his motion to extend time to appeal a Superior Court order that had itself declined to extend time for him to appeal a default order in a support enforcement proceeding.

The panel applied the deferential standard requiring an error in law or misapprehension of material evidence before intervening.

Finding no such error, the panel upheld the motion judge's refusal of the extension, which was based on the proposed appeal being manifestly without merit and an abuse of process.

The panel noted that concerns regarding incarceration, support payment history, and arrears calculation had been previously decided and upheld on appeal, and could not be addressed through the proposed appeal in the context of a support enforcement proceeding.

The moving party sought an extension of time in family support enforcement proceedings after repeated prior litigation.

Applying extension criteria, the court found no merit and characterized the proposed appeal as another collateral attack on long-settled support issues, amounting to abuse of process.

The parties separated after a 13-year marriage.

The applicant husband, who had not been formally employed during the marriage and operated a wildlife sanctuary, sought spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and equalization.

The respondent wife sought a declaration of sole beneficial ownership of the home, occupation rent, and repayment of post-separation expenses.

The court dismissed the wife's claim for sole ownership and the husband's claim for exclusive possession, ordering the home sold.

The court awarded the husband non-compensatory spousal support retroactively for three years, but found he was intentionally underemployed thereafter.

After setting off the husband's share of post-separation expenses against the spousal support and equalization owed by the wife, the wife was ordered to pay a net amount of $5,624.