McAlpin v. McAlpin
| Decision Date | 09 October 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-161,86-161 |
| Citation | 129 N.H. 737,532 A.2d 1377 |
| Parties | Gordon F. McALPIN v. Karen L. McALPIN. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
David K. Fulton P.A., Eliot, Me. (David K. Fulton on brief and orally), for plaintiff.
Glen E. Graper P.A., Portsmouth (Glen E. Graper on brief and orally), for defendant.
The plaintiff, Gordon F. McAlpin, appeals from the issuance of a divorce decree by the Superior Court (Manias, J.) pursuant to RSA 458:7-a. He seeks to set aside that portion of the decree concerning the division of property between himself and the defendant, Karen L. McAlpin, specifically challenging as inequitable the disposition of the parties' business and of proceeds from the sale of their vacation camp. He also suggests that the trial court may have based its award, in part, on a misunderstanding as to the amount of money contained in the parties' joint brokerage account with A.G. Edwards. We affirm the trial court's disposition of the business and camp proceeds, but remand for further findings of fact regarding the value of the A.G. Edwards account.
Gordon and Karen McAlpin were married on September 25, 1976. Until their separation in August 1984, they lived together in Fremont in a house owned by the plaintiff's father. For several months prior to the divorce hearing, the parties lived separate and apart, with the plaintiff living in the Fremont house. At the time of their divorce in December 1985, each was thirty-two years old and had earned a college degree. They had two daughters, aged seven and five and a half. The court awarded custody of the children to the defendant.
The trial court divided the parties' property as follows. Each retained personal property, and they were to divide household furnishings and appliances by agreement. The plaintiff received the Fremont residence and took responsibility for a Mastercard bill and all obligations either to his parents or arising from the use of the Fremont residence. The parties owned three automobiles. The court awarded to each the car driven during the separation. It ordered that the third car, a collector's item, be sold and the proceeds divided equally.
The court awarded the defendant all interest in property located in Rochester, which she had purchased with an initial $10,000 distribution to her from sale, during the separation, of the parties' vacation camp. It also awarded her all of the proceeds from the camp sale then held in escrow, together with the $10,000 the plaintiff had received as his share of the early distribution. In dividing the parties' jointly owned business, the trial court awarded the defendant $14,460, which the parties agreed was the amount of her investment. In return, it ordered that the defendant transfer all her interest in the business to the plaintiff. The court also awarded to the plaintiff all right, title and interest in the parties' joint brokerage account with A.G. Edwards, in which they had deposited stocks including gifts from the plaintiff's father. Finally, it ordered that the parties divide all other joint accounts equally. We discuss in greater detail below the aspects of the property division that the plaintiff specifically challenges.
The broad question that the plaintiff presents for our review is whether the trial court abused its discretion by dividing the parties' property in a way so inequitable as to amount to an error of law. He specifically challenges the distribution of the camp proceeds solely to the defendant and the trial court's decision to divide the business as it did without evidence of the current value of the venture's total assets and liabilities. He argues, as a subsidiary issue, that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to admit this evidence on plaintiff's December 6, 1985 motion to reopen. Finally, he brings to our attention the possibility that the court may have misunderstood evidence as to the value of a joint brokerage account held in the parties' names.
In matters of property settlement and divorce, we allocate broad discretion to the trial court, Economides v. Economides, 116 N.H. 191, 193, 357 A.2d 871, 872 (1976), and will set aside its determinations of property division only where the appealing party can demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion. Grandmaison v. Grandmaison, 119 N.H. 268, 270, 401 A.2d 1057, 1058-59 (1979).
In order properly to exercise this discretion, the trial court need not, in all cases, make an equal distribution. Rather, it must make what it deems an equitable distribution after considering the parties' property in its entirety and special circumstances recognized by this court as bearing on just division. Hodgins v. Hodgins, 126 N.H. 711, 714, 497 A.2d 1187, 1189 (1985); MacDonald v. MacDonald, 122 N.H. 339, 342, 443 A.2d 1017, 1018 (1982); Grandmaison, supra 119 N.H. at 271, 401 A.2d at 1059; Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 656, 392 A.2d 148, 150 (1978). We have recently held, however, that, despite its broad discretion and its power to order an unequal distribution in the interest of equity, the trial court must nevertheless satisfy certain requirements in rendering its decision. Thus "in the absence of any such special circumstances the distribution should be as equal as the court can make it, [and] [i]f, in a particular case, the court concludes that an unequal distribution of property is warranted, it should state its reasons and make specific findings and rulings supporting its decision." Hodgins, supra 126 N.H. at 715, 497 A.2d at 1190 (citation omitted).
Special circumstances that may justify an unequal distribution include, among others: (1) a marriage of short duration; (2) the exclusive premarital possession of an asset by one party that continues after marriage; (3) the recent acquisition of an asset by one party through family relationship; (4) one party's need to provide a home for minor children; (5) the assurance of each party's future security; and (6) the fault of either party. Hodgins, supra at 714-15, 497 A.2d at 1189-90.
As noted, the plaintiff challenges the trial court's distribution of the camp proceeds, the business, and the brokerage account. We address that court's disposition of each benefit separately below. The plaintiff also charges that the trial court acted inequitably in awarding him an automobile worth $3,000 while it awarded the defendant an automobile worth $10,000-$11,000. Evidence as to the value of these vehicles was conflicting, and the trial court refused plaintiff's request that it find the values stated above. Given the conflicting testimony and each party's obvious need for an automobile, the court did not abuse its discretion in making this award.
From September 1981 until its sale following their separation, the parties owned a camp at Merrymeeting Lake in New Durham. The trial court awarded all proceeds from the sale of this camp to the defendant. Thus, the proceeds themselves were apportioned unequally. The trial judge specifically found, however, that $46,822 of the $50,000 down payment on the camp were funds the defendant inherited from her mother. There was also testimony from which the judge could have found that the parties made all further payments on the camp from joint accounts.
Where the vast majority of the camp payments were thus attributable to the defendant's inheritance, the judge did not abuse his discretion in awarding her the property's sale value. See Henderson v. Henderson, 121 N.H. 807, 810, 435 A.2d 133, 135 (1981). This is particularly true where the judge awarded to the plaintiff a joint stock account containing funds largely attributable to gifts from his family. In short, the trial judge made findings of fact that justify unequal distribution of the camp proceeds and consistently recognized that each party deserved the benefit of a family inheritance or gift.
During the last two years of their marriage, the parties also owned and operated a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Dube, 2011–075.
...contends that there were no special circumstances justifying an unequal distribution of the marital property. See McAlpin v. McAlpin, 129 N.H. 737, 740, 532 A.2d 1377 (1987). While she acknowledges Eric's responsibility to provide a home for their child, she maintains that this “special cir......
-
Flaherty v. Flaherty
...in this case should have required the trial court to make an unequal distribution of the marital estate. See McAlpin v. McAlpin, 129 N.H. 737, 740, 532 A.2d 1377, 1378 (1987). RSA 458:16-a, II provides that the court presumes an equal division of property between the parties is equitable, u......
- State v. Duff
-
Bonneville v. Bonneville
...and to eliminate joint ownership of a business, whether operated primarily by one spouse or by both. See McAlpin v. McAlpin , 129 N.H. 737, 742, 532 A.2d 1377, 1380 (1987) ; Grandmaison , 119 N.H. at 271, 401 A.2d at 1059. In order to dissolve joint ownership of assets, a court may award ti......
-
§ 13.02 Division of Property at Divorce
...rule that gifts or inheritances received by one spouse should not be divided at divorce). New Hampshire: McAlpin v. McAlpin, 29 N.H. 737, 532 A.2d 1377 (1987) (court awarded wife property because it was purchased with funds from wife's inheritance). See also, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 458:16a.......