Ronald V. Zaldin

The applicant brought a motion seeking numerous orders, including striking the respondent's pleadings for failure to comply with a prior disclosure order and for breaching an order regarding the sale of a boat.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, noting that both parties had failed to strictly comply with the prior order's deadlines and that striking pleadings is a remedy of last resort, particularly where parenting issues remain unresolved.

However, the court ordered the respondent to pay $5,000 in costs for his deliberate breach of the order regarding the boat sale proceeds, and set new deadlines for financial disclosure and the appraisal of the matrimonial home.

The respondents, the applicant's former spouse and his father, brought motions for summary judgment to determine the validity of a $950,000 mortgage registered against a property owned by the former spouse.

The applicant argued the mortgage was a sham designed to defeat her equalization claim.

The court found that the father had advanced the funds to construct a home on the property and that the applicant had not signed the mortgage acknowledgment under duress.

The court granted partial summary judgment, declaring the mortgage valid and ordering the release of $950,000 from the sale proceeds to the father.

The plaintiff brought a motion for security for costs, which involved extensive cross-examination on the defendant's affidavit and numerous undertakings and refusals.

The court found that the motion was delving too deeply into the merits of the main action, causing undue delay and complexity, contrary to the principles of proportionality and efficient access to justice.

The motion for security for costs was adjourned sine die pending the completion of discoveries, with leave to re-bring it thereafter.

The court also provided directions for the production of certain financial documents by the defendant if the motion is pursued later and commented on the potential examination of a non-party.

This costs endorsement arose from a motion brought by the applicant wife for the appointment of an interim receiver, which was adjourned after the respondent husband secured financing.

The court found the applicant was justified in bringing the motion due to the husband's delay in payment but acted unreasonably by refusing to adjourn the motion when requested by the co-respondent brother, who had recently retained counsel.

Consequently, the court significantly reduced the applicant's requested costs, disallowing fees for court attendance and scrutinizing the reasonableness of claimed hours and disbursements.

The respondent husband was ordered to pay $9,744.61 in costs.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order appointing a specific listing agent for the sale of the parties' three properties.

The court applied the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion was dismissed because the applicant failed to point to a conflicting decision and failed to demonstrate that the proposed appeal involved matters of general or public importance beyond the interests of the immediate parties.

Following an adjourned family trial, the court addressed costs thrown away resulting from the respondent’s failure to provide court-ordered financial disclosure.

The court held that significant preparation and trial time had been wasted because disclosure remained incomplete despite prior orders.

After reviewing the applicant’s bill of costs, the court fixed compensable preparation and trial time related to disclosure issues at 43 hours and awarded fees and disbursements.

The court emphasized the importance of compliance with disclosure obligations and professional conduct expectations for counsel.

Costs were ordered payable by the respondent and the non‑dissipation order was varied to permit refinancing of property to fund payment.

During an ongoing family law trial involving property and financial claims, the court addressed significant disclosure failures by the respondent, which resulted in missing financial documents and inaccurate disclosure affidavits.

The court determined that the trial was not ready to proceed due to incomplete documentary production and ordered the trial adjourned to allow proper review and further disclosure.

Multiple procedural orders were made requiring both parties to identify and produce outstanding documents and to exchange sworn affidavits of documents.

The court also ordered costs thrown away to the applicant caused by the disclosure failures.

In addition, the court granted the applicant interim relief by directing the release of $40,000 from funds held in trust from the sale of the matrimonial home toward an admitted equalization entitlement.

Following a motion for leave to appeal temporary family law orders and a request for a stay pending appeal, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party had been granted leave to appeal and obtained a partial stay of orders relating to child support, spousal support, and a prior costs award.

The responding party argued that no costs should be awarded because the moving party was only partially successful.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering the factors under Rule 24(11), the court held that the moving party was the successful party overall and was therefore entitled to costs.

The respondent sought leave to appeal temporary family law orders requiring payment of child support, spousal support, and costs, and requested a stay pending appeal.

The challenge focused on the motion judge’s imputation of income that included legal fees paid by the respondent’s father as part of the respondent’s income for support purposes.

The court held there was good reason to doubt the correctness of including third‑party payment of legal fees in the imputation of income and that the issue was of sufficient importance to warrant appellate review.

Leave to appeal was granted on that narrow issue.

A partial stay of the support and costs orders was also granted pending appeal, with reduced interim child and spousal support amounts based only on other financial benefits received from the respondent’s father.

The applicant brought a motion seeking relief against the respondent law firm after funds were paid to the firm by the applicant’s former spouse following notice of a pending non‑dissipation order and after the order was granted.

The applicant argued that the payments of legal fees were part of a deliberate effort to dissipate assets and frustrate her ability to recover a substantial costs award in ongoing family litigation.

The court found that the acceptance of payments by the law firm in the context of the husband’s rapid depletion of assets constituted an abuse of process, particularly given the firm’s knowledge of the pending motion and subsequent court orders.

The court ordered the firm to pay into court the amount of funds received after notice of the non‑dissipation motion and required a limited accounting of legal fees.

Additional costs relating to the earlier motion were also ordered payable by the firm.