Saucier v. Saucier
| Decision Date | 07 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-431,79-431 |
| Citation | 430 A.2d 131,121 N.H. 330 |
| Parties | Constance F. SAUCIER v. Norman R. SAUCIER. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Joseph C. Krolikowski, Nashua, by brief for plaintiff.
Gall, Shapiro & Groff, Nashua (William J. Groff, Nashua, on the brief), by brief for defendant.
This is a marital case in which the plaintiff, Constance Saucier, filed a contempt petition against the defendant, Norman Saucier, in the Hillsborough County Superior Court to enforce the child support provisions in the parties' divorce decree. After a hearing, the Master (Henry P. Sullivan, Esq.) found that the defendant was $3,340 in arrears in his child support obligations and recommended that he be found in contempt and ordered to make certain payments on the arrearage. The Superior Court (King, J.) approved the master's recommendation and the defendant then filed a notice of appeal in this court.
The parties, who were divorced in 1975, were awarded joint custody of their two minor children. Child support, however was to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in the amount of $20 per week for each child actually residing with the plaintiff.
In 1979, the plaintiff brought this petition alleging that the defendant was $4,640 behind in his child support payments. In response, the defendant claimed that he had made direct payments to the children and that he was not obligated to make a substantial number of the weekly payments alleged to be in arrears because the children were not residing with the plaintiff during certain periods. A hearing was held, but not transcribed, at which the parties testified as to what times the children were actually residing with the plaintiff. After considering this evidence, the trial court issued the following order:
The defendant raises four issues on this appeal. First, he alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in not ruling that under the divorce decree support payments were to cease at the time each child reached the age of eighteen. On the record before us, we do not understand the relevance of this claim. The trial court's order makes no reference to the continuance of support payments after a child reaches age eighteen.
The defendant also argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the parties' daughter was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wagley v. Evans, No. 07-FM-1184.
...v. Lombardi, 68 Mass.App.Ct. 407, 862 N.E.2d 436 (2007); Wasson v. Wasson, 52 Mich.App. 91, 216 N.W.2d 594 (1974); Saucier v. Saucier, 121 N.H. 330, 430 A.2d 131 (1981); Belcher v. Averette, 136 N.C.App. 803, 526 S.E.2d 663 (2000); Cramer v. Petrie, 70 Ohio St.3d 131, 637 N.E.2d 882 (1994);......
-
Baker v. Dennis Brown Realty, Inc.
...of law apparent on the face of the record. McCrady v. Mahon, 119 N.H. 247, 248-49, 400 A.2d 1173, 1174 (1979); see Saucier v. Saucier, 121 N.H. ---, 430 A.2d 131 (1981). The defendant first argues that an offer to purchase real estate creates no legally protected interest or right if the of......
-
In re Sculley
...provision and, thus, the September 7, 2004 order should remain in effect. We disagree.The plaintiff relies upon Saucier v. Saucier, 121 N.H. 330, 430 A.2d 131 (1981), as her sole support. Her reliance is misplaced. In Saucier , the mother sought enforcement of child support obligations that......
-
Plaistow Bank & Trust Co. v. Webster, 80-356
...on the issue, it impliedly rejected the defendants' estoppel theory by rendering judgment for the plaintiff. See Saucier v. Saucier, 121 N.H. ---, ---, 430 A.2d 131, 132 (decided May 7, 1981); State v. McCarthy, 117 N.H. 799, 801, 379 A.2d 1251, 1252 (1977). A review of the transcript discl......