Grandmaison v. Grandmaison, 78-162
| Decision Date | 09 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-162,78-162 |
| Citation | 401 A.2d 1057,119 N.H. 268 |
| Parties | Norman L. GRANDMAISON v. Mary A. GRANDMAISON. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Tetler & Holmes, Hampton (Edward R. Woiccak, Hampton, orally), for plaintiff.
Shaines, Madrigan & McEachern, Portsmouth (Robert A. Shaines, Portsmouth, orally), for defendant.
The question before us in this marital case is whether the trial court abused its discretion in making a division of the parties' property and an alimony award.
The parties married in 1956, and have one child, who at the time of the final hearing was emancipated and a full-time college student. During their twenty-year marriage, the parties acquired substantial assets. In September 1975, the plaintiff, Norman Grandmaison, filed a petition for legal separation, which by agreement in April 1977, was amended to a libel for divorce. They were unable to agree upon either a property settlement or the amount of alimony to which defendant was entitled. The dispute was submitted to a Master (Henry P. Sullivan, Esq.) who, after a four-day hearing, issued his report recommending that a divorce be decreed, a property division be made and that defendant be awarded $300 per week alimony. The master's report was approved by the Court (Mullavey, J.). The defendant excepted, alleging that the master abused his discretion by failing to award higher alimony, by failing to divide the parties' property equally, and by failing to find as a fact that plaintiff owned a one-sixth equitable interest in the Hampton Beach Casino, Inc. Because we find that the master properly applied the law and that his findings of fact are supported by the record, we hold that there was no abuse of discretion, and overrule the defendant's exceptions.
The parties' joint assets consist principally of a home in Hampton, its furnishing and two automobiles. In addition, the plaintiff individually owns a one-half interest in the Ashworth Hotel, Inc., a resort restaurant-hotel located at Hampton Beach. This property has been the primary source of family income.
After hearing conflicting testimony concerning the value of these assets, the master recommended that the defendant be awarded $300 per week alimony; title to the home, valued at approximately $105,000, but subject to a $47,000 mortgage; $50,000 cash, to be paid in five equal annual installments; and one of the automobiles. The Plaintiff was also required to maintain a $50,000 life insurance policy with the defendant as beneficiary. The plaintiff was awarded the second automobile, and retained his one-half interest in the Ashworth Hotel, the net value of which was found to be in excess of $400,000. The plaintiff was made responsible for the parties' approximately $40,000 in outstanding debts, and he voluntarily assumed responsibility for his daughter's educational costs, amounting at the time to $9,000 per year.
The trial court's alimony and property division determinations will not be set aside unless the defendant can show a clear abuse of discretion. Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. ----, 392 A.2d 148, 149 (1978).
In the present case, the defendant asserts that the amount of alimony awarded is inadequate because it fails to make express provision for future medical expenses. Review of the trial transcript, however, indicates that evidence concerning defendant's future medical requirements was before the master, who specifically found that the defendant would continue to require medical care for the foreseeable future. In light of the foregoing, we must presume that the defendant's future needs were considered in determining the amount of alimony to be awarded her.
The defendant further contends that the fact that the master awarded less alimony than the plaintiff had offered before trial in a proposed decree compels a finding that the master abused his discretion. With limited exceptions, "(e)vidence of offers or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. Baker
...trial court has broad discretion in determining and ordering an equitable distribution of that property. See id.; Grandmaison v. Grandmaison, 119 N.H. 268, 401 A.2d 1057 (1979). The issue here is whether the defendant's military retirement pay is "part of the (defendant's) estate." See RSA ......
-
Hodgins v. Hodgins
...to mean that, while property must be distributed equitably, it need not always be distributed equally. See Grandmaison v. Grandmaison, 119 N.H. 268, 271, 401 A.2d 1057, 1059 (1979). A variety of circumstances may justify an unequal distribution; e.g., the fact that the marriage was of short......
-
Ruben v. Ruben, 82-344
...factors aids the master in his task of devising an equitable distribution of the marital assets. See Grandmaison v. Grandmaison, 119 N.H. 268, 271, 401 A.2d 1057, 1059 (1979). In denying Mrs. Ruben's request that the value of the plaintiff's professional career be found to be a marital asse......
-
Heinze v. Heinze
...involved with the business and had devoted substantial time and toil to its growth and maintenance. See Grandmaison v. Grandmaison, 119 N.H. 268, 271, 401 A.2d 1057, 1059 (1979). As to the division of the rest of the property, we cannot say that it is so inequitable as to require reversal. ......