In re Harvey

Summary

The New Hampshire Supreme Court reviewed a divorce decree involving alimony, child support, property distribution, and reimbursement of the respondent’s parents. The court upheld the alimony award but held that a twenty-three-year installment schedule for the property settlement was unreasonable and that reimbursement to the parents was not supported by an enforceable legal obligation. The case was affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not unsustainably exercise its discretion by limiting alimony to three years because the petitioner had a law degree and bar passage, the evidence supported the possibility of law-related employment within approximately three to four years, and her health issues were found to be temporary.
2. The trial court did not unsustainably exercise its discretion by awarding the petitioner $3,000 per month in alimony.
3. The trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion by permitting the respondent to pay a substantial portion of the petitioner's marital-property share over twenty-three years.
4. The trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion by ordering the parties to reimburse the respondent's parents $275,000 and reducing the marital estate by that amount when no enforceable legal obligation to repay the contributions was found.
5. The trial court properly included the respondent's interests in the real estate, timeshares, dental practice, and dental-practice building in the marital estate.
6. The trial court did not unsustainably exercise its discretion by awarding the petitioner a slightly unequal distribution in her favor.
7. The trial court did not unsustainably exercise its discretion by refusing to admit expert testimony proposing a discount for the respondent's fractional interests in certain real estate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the three-year duration of the petitioner's alimony award was inadequate.
2. Whether the monthly alimony award of $3,000 was inadequate.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting payment of a substantial portion of the petitioner's property settlement over twenty-three years.
4. Whether the trial court erred by ordering reimbursement to the respondent's parents for their contributions to the marital home's equity absent an enforceable legal obligation.
5. Whether the trial court properly included the respondent's premarital, gifted, and separately titled property interests in the marital estate.
6. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by declining to award an unequal property distribution in the respondent's favor.
7. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing expert testimony proposing a discount for the respondent's fractional interests in real estate.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded