Ruben v. Ruben, 82-344
| Decision Date | 07 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-344,82-344 |
| Parties | George C. RUBEN v. Faith M. RUBEN. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
McNamara, Larsen & Schuster P.A., Lebanon (Margaret K. Wheeler, on the brief and Mark A. Larsen, Lebanon, orally), for plaintiff.
K. William Clauson, Hanover, by brief and orally, for defendant.
In this divorce action the defendant appeals the Trial Court's (Johnson, J.) approval of the Master's (William E. Lovejoy, Esq.) report which recommended that the marital home be sold, that the equity be equally divided between the parties, and that support not be provided for the defendant's child by a previous marriage. We affirm.
In 1972, the plaintiff, George C. Ruben, and the defendant, Faith M. Ruben, were married in California, where the plaintiff was working toward a Ph.D. degree. Shortly after the marriage, the plaintiff was awarded his degree. The Ruben family then moved to Ithaca, New York, where the plaintiff worked as an electron microscopist at Cornell University. In 1977, Dr. Ruben was offered a similar position at Dartmouth Medical School, and the Rubens moved to Hanover, New Hampshire. The record indicates that during the marriage Dr. Ruben never earned more than $22,000 a year. The record also indicates that Mrs. Ruben was employed throughout most of the marriage as an insurance administrator, and at the time of the divorce Mrs. Ruben's annual salary was $16,000. During the marriage Mrs. Ruben had custody of her daughter by a previous marriage and received child support from the natural father.
The primary marital asset was the family home in Hanover, which at the time of the divorce had a market value of $125,000 with equity of approximately $54,000.
In 1981 Dr. Ruben filed for divorce on the basis of irreconcilable differences. See RSA 458:7-a (Supp.1979). A hearing was held before a master who made findings and recommendations as to the division of property. Specifically, the master denied Mrs. Ruben's request for findings that the value of Dr. Ruben's profession should be considered as an asset in making a property award and that Dr. Ruben had an obligation to support Mrs. Ruben's daughter because she was the plaintiff's stepchild. In this appeal, Mrs. Ruben argues that the master erred, in failing to award her the house outright, and in failing to require the plaintiff to make payments for the support of her daughter.
A master has broad discretion in making findings as to the distribution of marital property and the award of alimony, and we will not disturb such findings absent a showing of abuse of discretion or error of law. Henderson v. Henderson, 121 N.H. 807, 809, 435 A.2d 133, 135 (1981); see Rahn v. Rahn, 123 N.H. 222, ---, 459 A.2d 268, 269 (1983). In allocating property the court must consider the total economic circumstances of both parties at the time of the divorce hearing. See Lawlor v. Lawlor, 123 N.H. 163, ---, 459 A.2d 238, 241 (1983). Economic considerations include the income and assets of the parties, their liabilities, the respective contribution of the spouses in terms of services and money, the parties' health and their respective abilities to be self-supporting. Rahn v. Rahn, 123 N.H. at ---, 459 A.2d at 270; Murano v. Murano, 122 N.H. 223, 227-28, 442 A.2d 597, 600 (1982). The consideration of these economic 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 asset, the master stated that he found "no general scheme of contribution by the Defendant toward Plaintiff's education and advancement of career." The master, however, equally divided the equity interest in the marital home after Mrs. Ruben had been reimbursed for her family's contribution toward the downpayment on the real estate.
Some jurisdictions take into consideration, when dividing property, the fact that one spouse may have contributed financially to the education of the other spouse, see In re Marriage of Horstmann 263 N.W.2d 885, 891 (Iowa 1978), while others hold that a person's earning capacity, even where enhanced by the possession of a graduate degree paid for in part by another spouse, should not be recognized as a separate item of property. Stern v. Stern, 66 N.J. 340, 345, 331 A.2d 257, 260 (1975). We believe that the better rule is that a graduate degree acquired by one spouse during the course of a marriage is not considered an asset...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Archer v. Archer
...N.W.2d 885 (Iowa 1978); Inman v. Inman, 648 S.W.2d 847 (Ky.1982); DeLa Rosa v. DeLa Rosa, 309 N.W.2d 755 (Minn.1981); Ruben v. Ruben, 123 N.H. 358, 461 A.2d 733 (1983); Lynn v. Lynn, 91 N.J. 510, 453 A.2d 539 (1982); Mahoney v. Mahoney, 91 N.J. 488, 453 A.2d 527 (1982); Muckleroy v. Muckler......
-
Simmons v. Simmons, 15658
...conflict between Michigan appellate courts that is not yet resolved); Riaz v. Riaz, 789 S.W.2d 224 (Mo.App.1990); Ruben v. Ruben, 123 N.H. 358, 461 A.2d 733 (1983); Mahoney v. Mahoney, supra, 91 N.J. 488, 453 A.2d 527; Muckleroy v. Muckleroy, 84 N.M. 14, 498 P.2d 1357 (1972); Haywood v. Hay......
-
Marriage of Weinstein, In re
...(Ky.App.1981), 614 S.W.2d 710); New Jersey (Mahoney v. Mahoney (1982), 91 N.J. 488, 453 A.2d 527); New Hampshire (Ruben v. Ruben (S.Ct.1983), 123 N.H. 358, 461 A.2d 733); New Mexico (Muckelroy v. Muckelroy (S.Ct.1972), 84 N.M. 14, 498 P.2d 1357); Oklahoma (Hubbard v. Hubbard (Okla.S.Ct.1979......
-
Mace v. Mace, No. 2000-CA-01283-SCT.
...v. Leveck, 614 S.W.2d 710 (Ky.Ct.App.1981); New Jersey Mahoney v. Mahoney, 91 N.J. 488, 453 A.2d 527 (1982); New Hampshire Ruben v. Ruben, 123 N.H. 358, 461 A.2d 733 (1983); New Mexico Muckleroy v. Muckleroy, 84 N.M. 14, 498 P.2d 1357 (1972); Oklahoma Hubbard v. Hubbard, 603 P.2d 747 (Okla.......