3 total
The court dismissed a motion for exclusive possession of foreign-owned real property under section 12 of the Family Law Act.
The respondent, Serafim Beites, moved for an order granting him exclusive possession of real property jointly owned with the applicant, Kimberly Ann Beites, in Texas, and for an order restraining the applicant from attending that property.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that a preservation or restraining order under section 12 of the Family Law Act was not necessary to protect an equalization payment, and that the value of the Texas property was insignificant compared to the parties' other assets.
The court also questioned its jurisdiction to grant exclusive possession of foreign-owned real property and declined to exercise exceptional in personam jurisdiction in the circumstances.
The court awarded full indemnity costs against the applicant for bad faith conduct, including unfounded attacks on opposing counsel.
This is a costs endorsement following a motion brought by the respondent mother to strike the applicant father's pleadings for failure to comply with a previous costs order.
The motion was not argued as the applicant paid the outstanding costs.
The court found the respondent to be the successful party despite the motion not being heard, as her objective of enforcing the costs order was achieved.
The court also found the applicant acted in bad faith through duplicity regarding payment, threatening to destroy the child's belongings, and making unfounded attacks on the respondent's counsel.
Consequently, the court awarded the respondent costs on a full recovery basis, fixed at $3,000, and prohibited the applicant from bringing further motions or obtaining relief without leave until the costs are paid.
Interim supervised access ordered for father amidst conflicting allegations of abuse and parental alienation.
The moving party father brought motions for parenting time and reunification therapy after his access to the child was cut off following criminal charges against him, which were later withdrawn.
The responding party mother alleged the father had sexually abused the child, though no charges were laid against him for those allegations.
The court ordered interim supervised access for the father but declined to order reunification therapy on an interim motion, noting the lack of an independent report and specific details for a therapy plan.