The parties have a daughter. The issues are matrimonial property, child support and spousal support. With respect to spousal support the wife claims that she was economically disadvantaged by the marriage due to the fact that she delayed advancing her education. The husband argues that there is no economic disadvantage as the wife is in the same job she had prior to the marriage and that her failure to advance her career was due to personal problems. Further, he argued she enjoys considerable benefits through her job.HELD: The wife resides in the matrimonial home and does not wish to sell it, therefore the Court declined to make any adjustment to the value on account of notional costs of disposition. The appropriate manner of dividing the pension is to divide the value as of the date of application and transfer that amount with interest earned to date of the transfer. An order was made requiring the parties to return certain personal property and no further order was made regarding household goods. The net matrimonial assets total $93,378.53 and the husband must pay to the wife an equalization payment of $38,174.92. With respect to child support, the Court imputed to the husband an income of $12,000 from self-employment in addition to his regular income. Based on a total income of $47,894 he is ordered to pay $386 monthly. Court held that in this case it would not be appropriate to order a lump sum of payment of past owing support with an interim order. With respect to economic disadvantage, the Court held that the wife is young and still has opportunities available to her. The Court was not satisfied that her career path has been effected either positively or negatively by the marriage. No spousal support ordered as no need was demonstrated which requires further obligation on the husband. The husband is to pay 66% of the s.7 expenses. At this point, the listed extra-curricular expense are within the norm of expenditures for family of this income level and they do not constitute extraordinary expenses.