District Court orders $2,400 monthly support and return of $12,000 to joint account

The District Court on October 8, 2026, ordered Graham Benton to pay Elise Benton $2,400 a month until a permanent agreement is reached and to return $12,000 to their joint account. Presiding judge Dan C also directed division of the account balance, with Graham receiving $6,000 more than Elise to account for an earlier housing payment.

Elise had sought temporary maintenance at that rate, preservation of joint savings and an accounting of disputed withdrawals. The judgment grants the requested monthly amount but directs division of the joint funds rather than simply preserving them, and contains no separate accounting order.

The dispute centred on whether a short-term separation plan adequately met Elise’s needs and whether money moved from shared savings into Graham’s cabinet-installation business should remain there.

The signed judgment contains three operative directions but no explanation of the judge’s reasoning. It does not say how the court assessed Elise’s budget, Graham’s ability to pay or the significance of their signed $900-a-month plan.

The hearing exposed an important limit in the financial evidence: the account statement showed $12,000 moving from the joint reserve into the business account, but did not establish its ultimate destination. Graham acknowledged that he could not trace the full sum to specific suppliers without reviewing underlying records. Elise likewise acknowledged that the statement alone did not prove misuse.

The order requires the money’s return without expressly finding that Graham misappropriated it. It also describes the earlier $6,000 payment as a housing down payment and accounts for it through unequal shares of the joint balance; it does not explain the calculation beyond that direction.

Elise said she signed the one-page plan because rent was due, not to surrender longer-term support or savings claims. She described a text exchange treating the arrangement as a bridge for the next couple of months and leaving the treatment of the $6,000 advance unresolved.

She reported receiving three $900 transfers over four months, with one scheduled payment missed. Her $4,800 design payment came from one project, she said, and a friend’s $650 monthly apartment contribution was promised for only two months. She had no specific further design work lined up.

Graham sought to limit maintenance to $900 a month. He said delayed customer payments disrupted the schedule and that business deposits were not equivalent to personal income because materials and job costs consumed cash. He characterised the $6,000 as prepaid support and the disputed transfer as funding for customer jobs.

Graham also acknowledged charging a personal weekend trip to the business account. He said the $1,180 expense had been reimbursed, but could not identify the reimbursement account from memory.

The Bentons had been married for fourteen years and separated four months before the hearing. Elise said she reduced paid design work while taking on household responsibilities as Graham built his business, while also choosing to step back from travel-heavy assignments.

The ruling sets support pending a permanent agreement and addresses the joint account. It leaves unexplained the ultimate use of the transferred money and does not resolve longer-term maintenance or provide a broader financial accounting.