Hanson v. Hanson
| Decision Date | 10 August 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-241,80-241 |
| Citation | 433 A.2d 1310,121 N.H. 719 |
| Parties | Bernadine L. HANSON v. Robert E. HANSON. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Stuart Dedopoulos, Dover, waived brief and oral argument for plaintiff.
John J. Wholey, Portsmouth (Bernard W. Plech, Portsmouth, on the brief), for defendant.
In this marital case we find that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the jointly owned home to the plaintiff wife.
On April 4, 1980, after a hearing on the merits, the Marital Master (Bernard I. Snierson, Esq.) recommended that the court enter a decree of divorce of the parties on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. RSA 458:7-a (Supp.1979). The master further recommended that the plaintiff wife receive custody of the parties' eighteen-year-old son, that the defendant receive custody of the parties' two minor daughters, and that the defendant pay to the plaintiff $75 per week for the support of the "minor" son. Additionally, the master recommended that the court award the family home and furnishings to the plaintiff and order that the defendant make payments on the plaintiff's car and fuel bills. The Superior Court (Wyman, J.) approved the master's recommendations. The defendant filed a motion for rehearing, which the court denied. The defendant appealed to this court, alleging that the trial court's decree with respect to the property and child support awards constituted a clear abuse of discretion; he did not challenge the custody awards. The plaintiff waived the submission of a brief and oral argument.
It is well established that this court will not set aside a marital master's determination in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion. Goudreault v. Goudreault, 120 N.H. 140, 140, 412 A.2d 736, 736 (1980); Starkeson v. Starkeson, 119 N.H. 78, 80-81, 397 A.2d 1043, 1045 (1979). In this case, we find such an abuse in the master's property award.
The only real asset of the parties, as with most couples, is their home. The house is a ranch-style house about twenty years old. The parties paid $32,500 for the home by signing a mortgage note of $30,000; the down payment, closing and other costs, came from the parties' savings bonds. It is not clear what the original contribution of each party was, but the mortgage payments of $195 per month plus taxes came out of money earned by the plaintiff. Though the parties do not agree, the defendant asserts the equity in the real estate is about $15,000. The other property of the parties, including two cars, a small coin collection, and tools, are in an economic sense, of no consequence.
Under RSA 458:19 marital property is to be divided not by some magic formula but as the judge or master deems "just." A master is not obliged to divide property equally, but must apportion the estate according to the equities of the circumstances. Grandmaison v. Grandmaison, 119 N.H. 268, 271, 401 A.2d 1057, 1059 (1979); Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 656, 392 A.2d 148, 150 (1978); see Comer v. Comer, 110 N.H. 505, 508, 272 A.2d 586, 587-88 (1970). The disparity of contribution to the marital treasury is an especially valid consideration when dividing the asset of the parties. See Comer v. Comer, supra at 508, 272 A.2d at 587-88. The last joint income tax...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. Abalene Pest Control Services, Inc., 81-029
...Constitution. This court has also recognized that the only real asset most couples ever have is their home. See Hanson v. Hanson, 121 N.H. 719, 720, 433 A.2d 1310, 1311 (1981). Like a car, it is a major investment that is made with great care and deliberation. See Asciolla v. Manter Oldsmob......
-
Fabich v. Fabich
...there be an equitable division of the parties' property during dissolution proceedings. Cf . RSA 458:16–a, II; Hanson v. Hanson , 121 N.H. 719, 720, 433 A.2d 1310, 1311 (1981) (marital property to be divided in a "just" manner, according to the "equities of the circumstances"). First, the f......
-
Murano v. Murano, 81-056
...of property unless the court abused its discretion. Henderson v. Henderson, 121 N.H. at ---, 435 A.2d at 135; Hanson v. Hanson, 121 N.H. 719, 720, 433 A.2d 1310, 1311 (1981). We have acknowledged numerous factors which a court may find relevant in the division of property. The assets and in......
-
Heinze v. Heinze
...---- (decided this date). This court will not overturn a support order absent an abuse of discretion below. See Hanson v. Hanson, 121 N.H. 719, 720, 433 A.2d 1310, 1311 (1981). On the record before us, including evidence that the plaintiff did not have sufficient income to provide for the s......