This endorsement addresses costs following a successful motion by the defendants (Smiths) to set aside a noting in default.
Both the defendants, who were successful on the underlying motion, and the plaintiff sought costs.
The court clarified that there is no general rule precluding a party seeking an indulgence from being awarded costs, emphasizing that costs decisions are discretionary.
Despite the Smiths' success on the underlying motion, the court found their lack of diligence, failure to comply with court orders, and deficient materials weighed against a costs award.
Similarly, the plaintiff was denied costs due to their lack of diligence in pursuing the action and contributing to the delay.
Ultimately, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs for the motion.
