Vasoli v. Vasoli
| Decision Date | 22 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 4475,4475 |
| Citation | 122 A.2d 533,100 N.H. 200 |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
| Parties | Rigo A. VASOLI v. Evelyn M. VASOLI. |
Thomas E. Flynn, John DeCourcy, Portsmouth, Alfred Catalfo, Jr., Dover, for libelant.
Frank W. Peyser, Rochester, for libelee.
In instructing his client not to answer questions concerning the status of her savings, the libelee's counsel asserted that there is no statutory provision for disclosure of the wife's assets in advance of trial as there is with respect to the husband's, RSA 458:19, and relied upon the decision in Veino v. Veino, 96 N.H. 439, 78 A.2d 522, for the proposition that 'therefore such inquiry is not permitted.' In putting the questions, counsel for the libelant asserted a right to 'trace' his client's money, which the libelee had concededly 'controlled' during the period in question. The libelant's motion likewise seeks the right of 'tracing' all funds 'now standing in the name of the libelee, or others.' The libelant's assertion that the motion was denied as a matter of law, and not in discretion, seems not to be disputed.
We are satisfied that the motion was properly denied. RSA 458:19, supra, provides in part that: 'Upon a decree of nullity or divorce, the court * * * may compel the husband to disclose, under oath, the situation of his property * * *.' In Veino v. Veino, supra, it was held that under this statute such disclosure may in discretion be required in advance of entry of a decree. It was also there noted that the jurisdiction of the court in divorce matters has long been considered in this state to be strictly statutory.
The provisions for disclosure by the husband are of early origin. R.S. (1842) c. 148, § 13. See 5 N.H. Laws 732, 733. Occasion for pre-trial disclosure by a wife was not likely to have arisen with any frequency, before provision was made in 1887 authorizing a decree 'that the husband shall have a part of the estate of the wife in the nature of alimony, as justice may require.' RSA 458:22. No provision was then made however for disclosure of the wife's assets, and none has since been made. The existence of statutory authority to compel disclosure by the husband, with no comparable provision for discloseure by the wife must be deemed to indicate that none was intended. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Ohmart, N.H., 121 A.2d 793. Just as the power of the court to require the support of children was formerly restricted to an order against 'the guilty party', P.L. c. 287, § 15; Salta v. Salta, 80 N.H. 218, 116 A. 438; cf. RSA 458:17, so the power to order disclosure before trial is now limited in application to the husband.
Nor is any broader authority to be derived from the statutory provisions relating to the taking of depositions, for it is settled that such statutes do not apply to actions for divorce. Clough v. Clough, 80 N.H. 462, 119 A. 327.
Despite these limitations, the Trial Court has undoubted authority at the trial of the divorce action to then require such disclosure as may be thought material to the issues, and to decree such equitable division of the property of the parties as justice may require. Fowler v. Fowler, 97 N.H. 216, 218, 84 A.2d 836. Such a division may provide for an allowance to the husband, Malbouf v. Malbouf, 97 N.H. 342, 88 A.2d 308, and may be made without regard to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calderwood v. Calderwood
...to discover his former wife's financial assets, needs, and expenses by depositions, Dorothy relies principally on Vasoli v. Vasoli, 100 N.H. 200, 122 A.2d 533 (1956). In that case this court held that a husband seeking a divorce from his wife could not compel her to disclose her assets by a......