U.F.C. A.D. 1993 No. 677 J.C.S. IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH (FAMILY LAW DIVISION) JUDICIAL CENTRE OF SASKATOON BETWEEN: ANGELLA PHYLLIS PROTZ and ARCHIBALD WILLIAM PROTZ RESPONDENT D.J. Kendall for the petitioner M.W. Henderson for the respondent JUDGMENT GOLDENBERG J. May 28, 1996 Angella and Archie Protz are husband and wife. Therelief sought is divorce, division of matrimonial property,maintenance and costs. FACTS The parties were married on July 23, 1960 when they were both 19 years of age. They separated on December 10, 1991. This action was commenced on August 10, 1993. They have two adult children, son and daughter, who are both self-sufficient. At the time of the marriage Mrs. Protz's occupation was that of key punch operator. After the marriage she continued to work in that vocation. With the exception of 7-week period after the birth of their son in 1961, Mrs. Protz worked full time until their son was years old. At this time their daughter was born. About six months later she returned to the work force and then worked part time for almost all of the period until 1973. They had lived in Regina to that time. She was then able to obtain full time employment with IBM in Regina. At that time Mr. Protz's employment had been terminated and he was able to obtain employment as salesman with the J.I. Case company in Saskatoon. Mrs. Protz refused the job with IBM and they moved to Saskatoon. In Saskatoon she ultimately accepted job with the City of Saskatoon. As Mr. Protz wanted her to be at home until the children grew up she declined this position. Around 1985 Mrs. Protz moved to get back into the work force. The world of technology waits for no one. It certainly had not waited for Mrs. Protz. Mrs. Protz's world of the key punch operator was extinct. It had been replaced by the monitor and keyboard. It was world she was not familiar with. She took some upgrading and over the next fewyears cautiously did a small amount of part time work, usingthe new systems. She found this difficult. She also triedher hand at being a part time sales person and at direct homesales. She was not successful in that regard. In 1990 she was able to get position as data entry operator. Little more than half way through the 6-month training course she found her husband with another woman and discovered that they were having an affair. She had been having difficulties at work learning the new systems. After discovering her husband in compromising position she was emotionally distraught. She was not able to do the work. Mrs. Protz sought time off from work because of her matrimonial problems. She was told that the company would have to retain someone else. That leave of absence could not be granted as she had not been there long enough. She then terminated her employment. Mrs. Protz and Mr. Protz remained together until December 1991. At that time he assaulted her and they have not lived together since then. Mrs. Protz has sought employment, but has not been successful. She tried further upgrading, took counselling and has also sought employment in various retail outlets and other places. To no avail. An interim order was obtained on September 1,1993 under which Mr. Protz was to pay her spousal support of $1,700.00 per month. Under the order he was also to pay $15,428.64, being outstanding property taxes on the matrimonial home, on or before October 1, 1993. Mr. Protz did not do so. Mrs. Protz was obliged to ultimately borrow the approximate sum of $17,500.00 from her mother's estate in order to pay the taxes. In his affidavit of April 18, 1993, Mr. Protz swore that he was at that time regularly paying her expenses in the approximate sum of $1,200.00 per month and that he was additionally paying her $500.00 month for her expenses. On the application for interim maintenance Mr. Protz filed financial statement for Protz Power Inc. for the year ending May 31, 1992. The statement indicates an equipment rental expense of $43,807.00 and wages of $45,228.00. Mr. Protz showed net income after expenses of $30,618.00. As ordered, Mr. Protz paid $1,700.00 month for spousal maintenance until the examinations for discovery which took place in December of 1994 and January of 1995. He has not paid maintenance since that time. The value of certain of the assets is not in dispute. Also the evidence at the trial established that at the time of the application Mr. Protz had personal bank account in the sum of $6,373.56. Further the sum of $7,000.00 owing to Mr. Protz from his brother from the sale of farm machinery must be included as matrimonial asset. The parties have agreed as to the division of the furnishings. There is, however, dispute with respect to the farm machinery and Protz Power Inc. This dispute occupied major part of the trial. Protz Power Inc. The company has been in existence since 1989. Mr. Protz started the company and is the sole shareholder and director. The company has bought and sold new and used construction equipment, trucks, trailers and has sold construction equipment parts. Given the substantial dispute over the valuation of the company, it is necessary to look to the issue of the profitability of the company. This necessitates review of the financial statements. shall now review the evidence. Roger Protz, their son, gave evidence with respect to the company. must say at the outset that was impressed with his evidence. consider that while he was obviously distressed with having to testify as between his mother and his father, he gave his evidence in straightforward manner. recognize that Roger and his father parted company on what can only call strained circumstances. However, I prefer andaccept the evidence of Roger over Mr. Protz when there is avariance in their evidence. Roger worked with his father in the business from the time of the incorporation of the company in June of 1989 until December of 1994. The company sold construction equipment, parts, and had shop and service department. According to Roger his relationship with his father deteriorated after the commencement of the legal proceedings. His father accused him of providing his mother with financial information. Subsequently, Roger was not allowed access to any financial information of the company. He did continue working for the company until December, 1994 when his father terminated his employment. According to Roger, the mark-up on parts was about 60 to 70 percent. Parts were not sold at less than cost. On occasion when the parts could not be sold, they could be returned to the supplier upon payment of small restocking fee. Roger says the company also did service and repair work. Protz Power Inc. retained the services of freelance mechanic to do that work at $20.00 an hour. The company, in turn, charged customers at the rate of $36.00 to $38.00 an hour plus 10 percent for shop supplies for such work. In late 1992 or 1993 his father offered to sell him the parts section of the business for $87,000.00. When Roger last spoke to his father about the business, some months prior to trial, Mr. Protz stated that the business is "the best it's ever been". According to Roger the business at all times made significant profits. Doug Kalesnikoff testified as an expert with respect to the value of Protz Power Inc. In arriving at his conclusions it was necessary for him to review and give his opinion on the accuracy of certain of the financial statements of the company. In particular, there are two financial statements filed for the company for the year ending May 31, 1992. One financial statement records net earnings of $76,618.00, after payment of all expenses. The other financial statement for the same time period shows net earnings of only $30,618.00, after payment of all expenses. The financial statement showing net earnings of $76,618.00 was prepared by the company's accountant, Lorne Horning. In the financial statement for the following year Mr. Horning continued to use the sum of $76,618.00 for fiscal 1992 net earning. Notwithstanding this, Mr. Protz filed an income tax return with Revenue Canada to which was attached financial statement for the company showing net earnings of only $30,618.00 for the year ending May 31, 1992. The sum of $30,618.00 was carried forward into the next year's statement that was subsequently lodged with Revenue Canada. Before me Mr. Protz testified that he could not pay the income tax due on the correct figures and so he changed the amount of inventory and then submitted an incorrect statement to Revenue Canada. According to Mr. Protz, Mr. Horning participated in this false activity with him. From the evidence of Mr. Kalesnikoff take it that the figure of $76,618.00 is the correct figure. That it appears in one set of financial statements. That the false sum for net earnings of $30,618.00 appears on the set of financial statements provided to Revenue Canada. Before me Mr. Horning testified that he had previously been fined by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Saskatchewan for providing the two separate financial statements for the same year. That he did not appeal his conviction. Before me Mr. Horning did not deny the evidence of Mr. Protz as to Mr. Horning's involvement in the changing of the financial statement. pause here to add that the company's income tax return with attached "lower income" financial statement was filed with this Court by Mr. Protz as part of his opposition to Mrs. Protz's application for interim maintenance. In his affidavit in opposition to her interim maintenance claim Mr. Protz does say that he is being audited by Revenue Canada. do however consider it significant that Mr. Protz placed the financial statement before this Court under circumstances such that it would be considered by this Court when the question of his income as derived from the company would have to be considered. consider that this affects materially on his credibility and affects it adversely. According to Mr. Kalesnikoff the company maintained consistent gross margin percentage until the May 31, 1993 financial statement: 21.6 percent for the year ending May 31, 1991; 28.8 percent for the year May 31, 1992; 25.3 percent for the period ending October 31, 1992. However, for the seven months from October 31, 1992 to May 31, 1993 loss of 8.3 percent is arrived at. Mr. Kalesnikoff says that the financial statement for the period ending May 31, 1993 is not reliable and that he did not take it into account in arriving at his valuation of the company. That he proceeded to value the company based on the financial statements of May 31, 1991, May 31,1992 and October 31, 1992. Mr. Kalesnikoff arrived at valuation for Protz Power Inc of between $17,600.00 and $217,854.00. His values are based on the sale of the business as going concern. He further says that if the business were liquidated as opposed to selling it as going concern the liquidated value would be $143,344.00. Robert Lacoursiere gave expert evidence on behalf of Mr. Protz with respect to the value of Protz Power Inc. He did acknowledge that the proper valuation would be to determine the higher value between selling as going concern and liquidation costs. It is his opinion that in the instant case the business should not be valued as going concern. Accordingly he did not value it on that basis. It was also his opinion that the value would be worth nothing if the business was liquidated. Mr. Lacoursiere proceeded on the basis that the May 31, 1993 financial statement was accurate. He was not aware that there were two separate financial statements for May 31, 1992 or for May 31, 1993. He was unable to determine reason for such situation. In his view it would be inappropriate to have two different statements. According to Mr. Lacoursiere, using the October 31, 1992 financial statement, and deducting expenses from assets, results in $125,532.00 remaining. Expenses to be paid would include shareholder's loan in favour of Mr. Protz of $33,094.00. The resultant valuation would be $159,626.00. Counsel for Mrs. Protz says that the loss as shown in the May 31, 1993 financial statement is artificial and false and is not to be relied upon. As support for this he points to the following actions:- (a) Mr. Protz's admission of creating false figures in the company's financial statement for May 31, 1992. This was used in an effort to reduce the income tax payable. The statement was also used by Mr. Protz in opposition to Mrs. Protz's application for interim maintenance. (b) Equipment rentals are shown as an expense item in the financial statement. Mr. Horning testified that all items shown as equipment rentals were in fact wages paid to Mr. Protz. According to Mr. Horning Mr. Protz was losing money on his farming operations. That by recording the expense in that way, it could be recorded as revenue on his farming statement and this allowed Mr. Protz to deduct his farming expenses. note that both Mr. Kalesnikoff and Mr. Lacoursiere considered this as inappropriate. (c) Mr. Horning further said that Mr. Protz was endeavouring to obtain settlement of his wrongful dismissal claim against J.I. Case and as such did not want to show himself as receiving salary. Counsel for Mrs. Protz also points out that until the commencement of the action in August 1993, Mr. Protz was making voluntary payments of $1,700.00 per month and all payments were current, as were all loans and lines of credit. Counsel says that this undermines the proposition that the company had just gone through the worst financial year in its history. The financial statement for fiscal 1993 was prepared in October 1993. By letter dated December 6, 1993 Mr. Protz sent copy to his bankers. note that the letter says in part: This statement was prepared to include all write downs possible to arrive at that figure. Also, am going through divorce. What is been done at this time to get by the next 90-120 days until the divorce is complete. am sure that after 90-120 days, will be able to conduct business as level acceptable to yourself. strongly agree with the submissions of Mrs. Protz's counsel. Mr. Kalesnikoff was correct in not taking the May 31, 1993 financial statement into account in arriving at his valuation. Mr. Kalesnikoff, in his rebuttal evidence said that he had reviewed the accounts receivables from year to year. That there was significant repeat business as the same names showed up year after year. Accordingly he disagreed with Mr. Lacoursiere when he said that there was not lot of repeat customers in this field of endeavour. According to Mr. Kalesnikoff he had acted for many small businesses that can be sold as going concern and that was the situation with respect to the business in question before me. Farm Machinery Given the unease that have with respect to the financial statements and the recordkeeping of Mr. Protz and Protz Power Inc. have determined that it is appropriate to value the machinery separately. fix the value of the farm machinery at $53,400.00. Debts There is an issue as to whether there is debt owing to John Wach. No such debt is shown on Mr. Protz's financial statement. On the evidence before me, have determined that Mr. Wach, who did not testify, received truck from Protz Power Inc. That there is no debt. LAW AND DETERMINATIONS I consider it appropriate that all the assets bevalued as the same time. (Tataryn v. Tataryn (1984), 38 R.F.L. (2d) 272 (C.A.); Shockey v. Shockey (1985), 45 R.F.L. (2d) 219 (C.A.)). On the evidence before me and given my substantialreservations as to the activities of Mr. Protz herein and asto the financial statements and records subsequent to theOctober 31, 1992 statement I consider it appropriate to valuethe assets as of the time of the application. (Mehling v. Mehling (1989), 1989 CanLII 4775 (SK CA), 20 R.F.L. (3d) 42 (C.A.); Benson v. Benson (1994), 1994 CanLII 4554 (SK CA), R.F.L. (4th) 291 (C.A.); Rade v. Rade (1984), 40 R.F.L. (2d) 47 (Ont. S.C); Brockie v. Brockie (1991), 34 R.F.L. 175 (Ont. Gen. Div.)). As to the matter of the value of the business, look to the decision of our Court of Appeal in Criton v. Criton (1985), 1985 CanLII 2632 (SK CA), 44 Sask. R. 238. In that matrimonial property case the trial judge had declined to fix value for goodwill in valuing dental clinic. On appeal goodwill was taken into account and valued. also note that in his December 6, 1993 letter to his bankers Mr. Protz said:- and rest assure your bank has no reason to be alarmed. have buyers in place to purchase my business or portion. I value Mr. Protz\'s interest in Protz Power Inc. at$192,727.00 being the mid-point of Mr. Kalesnikoff\'svaluations. Distribution value the matrimonial assets of the parties and attribute them as follows:- Mr. Protz: Farmland 53,382.00 Farm machinery 53,400.00 Protz Power Inc. 192,727.00 Standing crop 6,796.00 Sask. Wheat Pool 1,760.00 Co-op Hail Insurance 233.00 R.R.S.P. (Dataplan) 84,000.00 Account receivable (C. Protz) 7,000.00 Personal bank account 6,373.00 J.I. Case settlement 12,000.00 417,671.00 Less due to Royal Bank 38,869.00 Less due for farm loan 26,296.00 Less due to Revenue Canada 14,105.00 Net assets 338,401.00 There is also the issue of an advance from the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr. Protz has received all income from the farming operation. The advance was paid off entirely by the time of the trial. Under all the circumstances that debt is not to be taken into account. Protz: From the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home the sum of $13,500.00 was paid out to remove writ of execution by Saskatchewan Government Insurance against Mr. Protz arising out of an automobile accident. Mr. Protz refused to take the breathalyser test and was, therefore, obligated to pay for the damages. Mrs. Protz should receive an equivalent amount from the total matrimonial assets prior to any equal distribution. Net proceeds of matrimonial home (and after Mrs. Protz receives $13,500.00 by way of equalization for the $13,500.00 paid out to clear the above writ of execution) 56,536.16 Automobile 8,300.00 R.R.S.P. 1,300.00 Bank account 2,800.00 68,936.00 Less debt as per financial statement 2,500.00 Net assets 66,436.16 Difference in assets ($338,401.00 $66,436.00 (rounded) $271,965.00, of which Mrs. Protz's one-half share is $135,982.00 (rounded). There will be the following orders: (1)From the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home Mrs.Protz is to receive the sum of $13,500.00 by way ofequalization for the monies paid out to clear Mr. Protz\'s writof execution; (2)Mrs. Protz is to receive the balance of the sale proceeds free and clear; (3)Any interest accrued on the matrimonial home sale proceedsis to be divided equally between the parties hereto andinterest accruing to Mr. Protz is to be paid out to Mrs.Protz, to be applied by her against the judgment that iscreated hereafter in her favour as against Mr. Protz; (4)In addition to the sale proceeds as above, Mrs. Protzreceives her automobile, her R.R.S.P. and her bank account; (5)Mrs. Protz shall have judgment against Mr. Protz for thesum of $135,982.00. A charge in that sum is created againstthe matrimonial assets that become Mr. Protz\'s as a result ofmy judgment herein. The Registrar of the Land Titles Officefor the Yorkton Land Registration District is directed toregister such charge against Mr. Protzï¿½s interest in the NW ï¿½,the NE ï¿½ and the SE ï¿½, all in Section 14, Township 25, Range5, West of the Second Meridian; (6)There will be a transfer to Mrs. Protz, by way of spousalrollover, of monies in Mr. Protz\'s R.R.S.P. and to the extentof $84,000.00. In the event that it is necessary, Mr. Protz is directed to execute all documents as may be required to give effect to this order; (7)Settlement proceeds from Mr. Protz\'s claim against J.I.Case (or such other name as may be correct), and to the extentof $12,000.00, are to be assigned and paid out to Mrs Protz. Mr. Protz is directed to execute all documents as may be necessary to give effect to this order; (8)All monies received by Mrs. Protz from items and above are to be credited against the judgment created herein; (9)Mr. Protz is to pay the monies owing to Mrs. Protzhereunder, together with all interest accruing thereon, withinsix months of the date of this judgment. In the event thatpayment is not made as ordered, the Sheriff of the JudicialCentre of Saskatoon and the Sheriff of the Judicial Centre ofYorkton, if the involvement of that Sheriff is required, is toproceed with the judicial sale of such of the assets of Mr.Protz as may be required to secure payment of the monies thendue to Mrs. Protz pursuant to my judgment herein; (10)Pursuant to the September 1,1993 order of this Court Mr.Protz was to pay $15,428.64, being outstanding property taxeson the matrimonial home, on or before October 1, 1993. Thiswas not done. Mrs. Protz shall now have judgment against himfor the sum of $15,428.64, which is also to be a charge and isto be paid and if necessary is to be enforced, all as providedearlier in these orders Spousal Maintenance Mrs. Protz seeks spousal maintenance in the sum of $2000.00 month. In Miller v. Miller, [1996] S.J. 212, F.L.D. 01515 J.C.R., March 29, 1996, Wimmer J. said: [para24] Spousal support orders are authorized and governed by the following provisions included in s. 15 of the Divorce Act. (2) court of competent jurisdiction may, on application by either or both spouses, make an order requiring one spouse to secure or pay, or to secure and pay, such lump sum or periodic sums, or such lump sum and periodic sums, as the court thinks reasonable for the support of (a) the other spouse (4) The court may make an order under this section for definite or indefinite period or until the happening of specified event and may impose such other terms, conditions or restrictions in connection therewith as it thinks fit and (5) In making an order under this section, the court shall take into consideration the condition, means, needs and other circumstances of each spouse including (a) the length of time the spouses cohabited; (b) the functions performed by the spouse during cohabitation; and (c) any order, agreement or arrangement relating to support of the spouse (6) In making an order under this section, the court shall not take into consideration any misconduct of spouse in relation to the marriage. (7) An order made under this section that provides for the support of spouse should (a) recognize any economic advantages or disadvantages to the spouses arising from the marriage or its breakdown; (c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and (d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within reasonable period of time. It is now necessary to decide whether any spousal support order is justified in light of the matrimonial property division. [para27] In Ritchie v. Ritchie (1994), 1994 CanLII 5101 (SK QB), 121 Sask. R. 197 at 208 and 209, Maurice J. aptly summarized the rationale underlying spousal support orders. In Moge v. Moge, 1992 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1992] S.C.R. 813; ... the Supreme Court of Canada considered the principles that courts should apply when awarding spousal support under the Divorce Act 1985: (1) Spousal support provisions are intended to deal with the economic consequences of marriage breakdown and to relieve economic hardship resulting from (2) The objectives enumerated in s. 15(7) are to be considered in the context of the circumstances listed in s. 15(5) in fashioning an appropriate order of spousal (3) All of the objectives enumerated in s. 15(7) must be taken into account in deciding an appropriate support order. No single objective is paramount. [para28] He held that when applying these principles court must take into account the sharing of matrimonial property when considering economic advantage or disadvantage arising from the marriage or its breakdown. He also ruled that the wife had not demonstrated any economic hardship arising from the breakdown of the marriage notwithstanding that the husband's annual income by then was more than ten times hers. Taking the wife's assets into account, including her share of the matrimonial property, he found that she had ample resources to support lifestyle comparable to what she enjoyed before separation, and he declined to order spousal support. Messer v. Messer (1993), 1993 CanLII 9094 (SK QB), 108 Sask. R. 155, underscored the difficulties in applying the Moge v. Moge principles where there is significant amount of matrimonial property. Matheson J. found it impossible to weigh economic advantages or disadvantages without reference to matrimonial property and concluded at p. 158 that "... the greater the value of the divisible matrimonial property, the less significant is any discrepancy between the employment incomes, or potential employment incomes, of the parties." [para30] Rarely will two people, living apart, be able to maintain the same standard of living that they enjoyed while together. That is not the objective of s. 15 of the Divorce Act. Rather, the goal is economic justice and the promotion of financial self-sufficiency. [para31] Given the value of her share of the matrimonial property, it is difficult for the respondent to contend that she has suffered economic disadvantage arising from the marriage or its breakdown. One can only speculate as to whether she would have been better or worse off financially but for the [para32] Nor has she demonstrated any particular economic hardship arising from the breakdown of the marriage. prudent utilization of her resources will provide standard of living comparable, or nearly comparable, to that she enjoyed prior to the breakdown. In short, when she has in hand all that she is entitled to by virtue of the matrimonial property order, she will be economically self-sufficient. [para33] The spousal support order now in place will continue until the matrimonial property order is given full effect. That is, until the respondent has received all of the payments and transfers of property that are coming to her. Thereupon, the order will terminate. I have earlier referred to technology passing Mrs.Protz by. am satisfied that had she remained in the data entry field the very progress that have been referring to would have carried her along with it. To what extent cannot say. am mindful of the distribution of matrimonial property that have ordered. I do however consider that Mrs. Protzhad been economically disadvantaged to some extent arisingfrom the marriage or its breakdown. Until Mr. Protz satisfies the orders that I havemade herein, Mrs. Protz shall receive spousal maintenance inthe sum of $2000.00 per month. The first of such payments is to be made on the June 1, 1996 and on the 1st day of each month during the currency of this provision. Upon the ordersherein being satisfied, Mrs. Protz is to receive the sum of$1000.00 a month thereafter until her 60th birthday at whichtime spousal maintenance is terminated. On the evidence before me am satisfied that Mr. Protz should have complied with the outstanding order for spousal maintenance. Mrs. Protz seeks costs on solicitor-and-client basis, including all the fees and costs of Mr. Kalesnikoff. have considered the state of the information provided by Mr. Protz, what term his evasiveness and obstinance on the stand, and his attempts to falsify and manipulate information. Applying the principles enunciated in Ewing v. Ewing (1987), 1987 CanLII 4865 (SK CA), 56 Sask. R. 263 (C.A.) and Logan v. Logan (1986), R.F.L. (3d) 152 (Sask. U.F.C.), costs are awarded against Mr. Protz on solicitor-and-client basis. The costs are to be taxed. This includes the fees and disbursements of Mr. Kalesnikoff. Divorce There will be judgment dissolving the marriage, same not to be effective until the expiration of 31 days. have considered the arguments, and written submissions of counsel. Also the cases and articles cited. thank counsel for their assistance.
The relief sought was divorce, division of matrimonial property, maintenance and costs. The respondent admitted to having two different financial reports prepared in 1992 for his company of which he was sole Director and shareholder. The company's accountant had been fined for preparing a false report and the respondent was being audited by Revenue Canada. The false report had been submitted to the Court for valuation of the company. HELD: 1)The testimony of the son who had worked for the respondent until fired for allegedly disclosing information to the mother was accepted over that of the respondent. 2)All assets were valued as the same time, the time of the application. The midpoint of the valuations was used to value the respondent's interest in the company at $192,727.00. 3)The petitioner was to receive the balance of the proceeds of the sale of the matrimonial home plus $13,500 to equalize for monies paid to clear off the respondent's writ of execution. 4)Any interest accrued on the sale of the matrimonial home was to be divided equally. 5)The petitioner received her automobile, RRSP and bank account. 6)She was given judgment against the respondent for $135,982.00 with a charge against the matrimonial assets to be registered at Land Titles. 7)$84,000 of the respondent's RRSP was transferred by way of spousal roll over to the petitioner. 8)$12,000 of the settlement proceeds from the wrongful dismissal claim were to be assigned and paid out to the petitioner. 9)All monies were to be paid within six months failing which the Sheriff was to proceed with the judicial sale of such of the assets of the respondent as may be required. 10)Judgment and a charge was ordered against the respondent for the outstanding property taxes in the amount of $15,428.64 which he was to have paid on or before October 1, 1993 by a previous court order. 11)Technology had passed the petitioner by and she had been economically disadvantaged to some extent from the marriage or its breakdown. She had upgraded but had been unable to secure employment. She was to receive $2,000 per month in support until the orders were satisfied and thereafter, $1,000 a month until her 60th birthday.  12)Costs were awarded to the petitioner on a solicitor-and client basis.