Grace,
Yes definitely, I think she could get the 6 months on the grounds ie: breach of contract, the intent of the order or minutes of settlement, order or agreement has been breached. Moreover, I'm thinking, there must be a reason why the benefits was agreed to the parties for a 6 month period. Perhaps one party wanted to get some dental work completed, but since the lack of co-operation on the compliance of the agreement order, the work had to be set aside. I definitely think she would be entitled to costs associated with having the party comply with the order, minutes of settlement or agreement.
Sunday,
I am not sure of your circumstances, but I find it that somehow you got the short end of the stick ie: that you settled for only 6 months of post benefits. I read a case recently in regards to spousal support periodic quantum and each party was going through each others expense claims with a fine tooth comb. The payor party had a problem with the recipient party claiming monthly premiums for extended health benefits such as dental plan etc for determing periodic quantum of spousal support. The court HELD that the extended health benefits of the recipient party ARE a reasonable necessary expense.
LV
Yes definitely, I think she could get the 6 months on the grounds ie: breach of contract, the intent of the order or minutes of settlement, order or agreement has been breached. Moreover, I'm thinking, there must be a reason why the benefits was agreed to the parties for a 6 month period. Perhaps one party wanted to get some dental work completed, but since the lack of co-operation on the compliance of the agreement order, the work had to be set aside. I definitely think she would be entitled to costs associated with having the party comply with the order, minutes of settlement or agreement.
Sunday,
I am not sure of your circumstances, but I find it that somehow you got the short end of the stick ie: that you settled for only 6 months of post benefits. I read a case recently in regards to spousal support periodic quantum and each party was going through each others expense claims with a fine tooth comb. The payor party had a problem with the recipient party claiming monthly premiums for extended health benefits such as dental plan etc for determing periodic quantum of spousal support. The court HELD that the extended health benefits of the recipient party ARE a reasonable necessary expense.
LV
Comment