In the Matter of James J. Peirano and Sharon L. Larsen

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed a divorce decree involving alimony, visitation, property division, a restraining order, firearm disposition, and the qualifications of a guardian ad litem. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, concluding among other things that certain due process arguments were unpreserved, that the guardian ad litem was not disqualified solely for lacking admission to the New Hampshire bar, and that several family-court rulings were within the trial court's discretion.

Holdings

1. The court declined to review Peirano's due process and Rule 57 arguments because he failed to preserve them in the trial court.
2. RSA 458:17-a did not require a guardian ad litem to be admitted to practice law in New Hampshire, so the appointment of the Massachusetts attorney was not invalid on that ground.
3. The trial court did not unsustainably exercise its discretion by awarding Peirano $1,300 per month in alimony for two years.
4. The trial court did not unsustainably exercise its discretion by awarding Larsen sole legal and physical custody and Peirano supervised visitation.
5. The trial court did not err in awarding the marital residence to Larsen based on Peirano's fault and the child's need for a stable living environment, and neither party showed that the remaining property distribution was unsustainable.
6. The trial court did not unsustainably exercise its discretion by continuing the restraining order.
7. The evidence supported granting Larsen a divorce under RSA 458:7, V, because Peirano's treatment seriously injured her health or endangered her reason.
8. Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), prohibited Peirano from possessing firearms and ammunition during the pendency of the restraining order.
9. RSA 458:16-a did not authorize the trial court to order the firearms sold when the sale was not part of dividing the proceeds between the parties; the firearm-sale provision was reversed and remanded.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Peirano preserved his procedural due process and Superior Court Rule 57 challenges concerning delayed cross-examination and reconsideration of the temporary alimony order.
2. Whether the guardian ad litem was legally unqualified because she was not admitted to practice law in New Hampshire.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Peirano alimony.
4. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Larsen sole custody and Peirano supervised visitation.
5. Whether the trial court's division of the marital assets, including awarding Larsen the marital residence, was legally or factually unsustainable.
6. Whether continuation of the restraining order was supported by the evidence.
7. Whether the evidence supported a fault-based divorce under RSA 458:7, V.
8. Whether federal law prohibited Peirano from possessing firearms while subject to the restraining order.
9. Whether RSA 458:16-a authorized the trial court to order Peirano's firearms sold when the sale proceeds were awarded entirely to him.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded