Raymond Dwight Sowley

The parties separated after a 21-year marriage.

The applicant sought an unequal division of net family property, alleging the respondent recklessly depleted insurance proceeds received after their home burned down.

The court dismissed the claim for unequal division, finding insufficient evidence of reckless depletion.

The court ordered the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, with proceeds to be divided equally after paying joint debts.

The respondent was ordered to pay retroactive child support of $13,212 out of his share of the house proceeds, and ongoing child support based on his current income.

Spousal support was set at zero due to the respondent's inability to pay.

The applicant mother brought a motion alleging the respondent father breached multiple terms of a final consent order, specifically regarding his failure to engage in parenting coordination and his attendance at the children's school sporting events.

The court found the father breached the order by failing to participate in parenting coordination and ordered him to retain a coordinator and pay costs thrown away.

However, the court dismissed the allegations regarding his attendance at school sporting events, finding the order permitted his attendance and the provision excluding extended family members was unenforceable.

Following a motion for child and spousal support, both parties sought costs against each other.

The court noted significant deficiencies in both parties' presentations, including inadequate financial disclosure and delayed action.

Although the respondent was more successful overall in obtaining support, her costs claim was significantly reduced due to divided success and poor presentation.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $1,000 in costs.

This motion addressed temporary spousal and child support claims in a family law proceeding marked by protracted litigation and a lack of timely advancement to trial.

The court criticized the parties' approach of relying on endless motions without adequate disclosure or questioning.

While parenting issues were resolved by minutes of settlement, the court was compelled to issue a temporary support order based on imperfect evidence due to the parties' delays.

The judge rejected the applicant's argument that a 2010 memorandum of understanding constituted a "forever waiver" of spousal support, given the subsequent six-year reconciliation.

Temporary child and spousal support were ordered with specific income imputations, and strict timelines were set for further disclosure and steps towards trial.

The applicant and respondent were in a volatile, on-again/off-again relationship for several years.

After they separated, the applicant claimed the respondent was unjustly enriched by his financial and other contributions, seeking a monetary award of $55,200 based on a 'joint family venture' and a 'value surviving' calculation.

The respondent denied the claim and sought repayment of funds advanced for stock market investments and credit card debt.

The court dismissed the applicant's unjust enrichment claim, finding no joint family venture and that his contributions were largely for rent and groceries.

The court ordered the applicant to pay the respondent $3,700 as a return of investment capital and $3,122 for credit card debt.