Kiteley J. declined to impute an income to the recipient. At ¶ 53-54, she noted that many of the decisions that had been supplied to her were trial decisions, or decisions where income had been imputed to a support payor. She then said, “[o]n a motion for temporary support the task of imputing income to the support recipient requires an in-depth analysis as to ability to earn more professional income or in investment income. It is contrary to the expectations on a motion for temporary support for the court to undertake that analysis.” In this regard, her reasoning also aligns with ¶ 14(3.) of Politis v. Politis.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.