Esther B. Kerzner v. Daniel Kerzner (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

THE COURT:  This is the matter of Kerzner versus Kerzner, F A zero six four zero two six five one six S. It's Esther B. Kerzner versus Daniel Kerzner, spelled K-e-r-z-n-e-r.   Decision on motion for contempt.

The plaintiff filed a motion for contempt claiming the defendant was in contempt of Court orders.   That motion was dated May eleventh two thousand and ten and served on the defendant on May eighteenth two thousand and ten.   The motion for contempt claims that the defendant has failed to pay child support of four hundred and twenty-three dollars per week and alimony in an amount of three hundred fifty-five dollars per week and during the course of the hearing claimed a deficiency in that amount in the amount of three thousand seven hundred and thirty-nine dollars based upon a schedule of payments over a thirty-nine week period, which he introduced;  i.e., the defendant introduced.   The Court however did the mathematical equation and arrived at different figures.   The Court found that thirty-nine weeks at seven hundred and seventy-eight dollars per week;  i.e., the amount of the support and alimony together resulted in a balance due of thirty thousand three hundred and forty-two dollars.   In subtracting an amount that the exhibit indicated that he paid in the amount of twenty-nine thousand two hundred and ninety-seven that left an amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff in the amount of one thousand forty-five dollars.   The Court then added an additional amount of fifteen hundred and fifty-six dollars for two bounced checks that had been added into the two thousand two hundred ninety-seven dollars and came out with a total due from the defendant of two thousand six hundred dollars for back alimony and support.   In addition the plaintiff filed in its motion for contempt a claim that the defendant failed to comply with the provision of the Court order that each party pay fifty percent of unreimbursed medical and dental expense.   The Court finds that the defendant owes four thousand one hundred and forty-eight dollars and five cents to the plaintiff and/or the medical providers for that amount of medical and dental work.   The Court will not find him in contempt on the complaint based upon weekly support of alimony and child support because the financial history shows that historically he's attempted to comply with it but it will find him in contempt for his failure to pay his share of the medical and dental bills in the amount of four thousand one hundred forty-eight dollars and five cents.   The defendant claimed that he believed that there was no necessity for the dental work because of his, basically because of his financial position in that he could not pay it.   He also claimed that under the agreement that was entered at a time that they were suppose to consult.   There's no question that they did consult but there was a disagreement.   The Court found however that the treatment was necessary based upon evidence introduced at the hearing.   The Court will therefore find him in contempt that he cannot merely claim I'm not going to pay something because he disagrees with what took place.   The Court believes that he understood his obligation to pay and that therefore the act was willful.   The Court will enter counsel fees of three thousand dollars plus costs of six hundred and thirty-two dollars and eighty-one cents for which he will be obligated to pay to the plaintiff.   The parties are ordered to schedule a hearing within the next three weeks with Case Flow to enter additional orders implementing this decision with respective proposed plans on how to pay it.

The Honorable Herbert Barall, Judge

Barall, Herbert, J.T.R.