Justice Charles Wood
In this action for divorce, the parties were unable to resolve the issues of attorney fees, and a hearing was held on wife’s application. The court noted the day before commencement of the matrimonial suit, husband was laid off as an investment advisor. He now worked for a securities firm and his income is solely commission based. It noted during the hearing the husband’s testimony “alternated between disingenuous and incredible,” finding wife “infinitely more credible.” The court found husband clearly earned more than wife during the marriage, however, it stated husband unnecessarily escalated wife’s counsel fees by failing to comply with court orders, being in arrears on support, and failing to provide financial disclosures. As such, it ruled husband prolonged the litigation in bad faith, causing wife to incur significantly higher attorney fees than reasonably should have been necessary. The court also found husband had superior earning power, even after taking into consideration maintenance and child support awarded to wife. Thus, it ruled wife was subjected to higher fees due to husband’s conduct, believing it appropriate to award her counsel fees of $53,000 for husband to pay directly to wife for his “recalcitrance and obstructionist tactics.”
