Given the respondent’s pre-divorce history of arrears of support, it is unfortunate that an order for a lump sum was not made at the time of divorce and equalization, when the parties likely had liquid or shared assets to facilitate the transfer of a lump sum for support. However, at the present time there is no great disparity between the parties’ financial situations, as in Elliot v. Elliot[2], and, being bereft of liquid assets, the respondent is incapable of paying a lump sum order. To order him to do so would cause him undue hardship.
"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.