In Re Brownell
44 A.3d 534
N.H.2012Background
- Married 13 years; separated May 2010; final divorce decree issued Apr 2011.
- Petitioner Ronald Brownell is totally and permanently disabled; receives monthly VA disability and Social Security benefits.
- Respondent Irene Brownell also suffers PTSD and has limited means; relies on food stamps with no substantial assets.
- Only marital asset was petitioner’s inheritance from his mother’s trust; mother died Mar 2010; petitioner received $79,000 from the trust before divorce; misused funds and spent all by Feb 2011.
- Trial court found petitioner not credible, with multiple misrepresentations about trust withdrawals.
- Final decree ordered petitioner to pay respondent half of trust distributions ($47,000) and held him in indirect civil contempt for nonpayment of alimony and for hypothecation of assets; lien granted against trailer and truck to secure debt; contempt sanctions included fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether VA disability benefits may be counted as income for alimony. | Brownell argues federal law bans counting disability benefits as income. | Brownell contends federal law precludes attachment or consideration for alimony. | Yes; disability benefits can be considered income for alimony. |
| Whether post-divorce trust distributions are marital property subject to distribution. | Brownell asserts future trust distributions are mere expectancy. | Respondent contends distributions are property rights. | Distributions are property interests subject to equitable distribution. |
| Whether ordering $47,000 split from trust distributions was proper given dissipation. | Distributions were dissipated pre-divorce and no longer property. | Dissipation does not defeat equity; distribute as marital property. | Courts may equitably distribute dissipated property; order affirmed. |
| Whether the contempt finding for alimony nonpayment and anti-hypothecation violation was proper. | Contempt should be reversed for lack of ability-to-pay defense. | Record did not preserve failure-to-pay defense; plain error not shown. | Contempt upheld; defenses not preserved or not plain error. |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218 (2002) (broad discretion in property division; standard for review of equitable distribution)
- In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31 (2002) (evidence sufficient for findings; credibility review)
- In the Matter of Goodlander & Tamposi, 161 N.H. 490 (2011) (trust distributions; whether interest is property or expectancy)
- In the Matter of Chamberlin & Chamberlin, 155 N.H. 13 (2007) (trust corpus vs. distributions; equitable distribution limits)
- Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (1987) (veterans' benefits not exempt from alimony obligations)