In re Canaway, 161 N.H. 286

Canaway (husband) and Canaway (wife) were divorced in 1994 with alimony ordered for a defined period then indefinitely due to disparate earning abilities.
In 2003, husband moved to modify alimony; court denied, finding no substantial unforeseen change in circumstances.
In 2007, husband again moved to terminate alimony; court denied termination but reduced payments to $750/month indefinitely, noting wife’s continued need and husband’s assets and potential to earn.
In 2009, husband filed a third motion to terminate; wife filed a contempt petition alleging arrearages were unpaid since December 2008.
Trial court found wife lived in a delicate financial balance with a monthly deficit, and that husband had sufficient assets but chose to support his fiancée and her businesses instead of paying alimony.
Court ordered husband to pay a lump sum arrearage, maintain alimony, and awarded wife $4,560 in attorneys’ fees; husband appealed both the denial of modification and the contempt ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether changed circumstances justify modifying or terminating alimony.	Canaway contends no substantial change in circumstances justifies termination.	Canaway argues the court should consider his health, earnings decline, and assets to terminate.	No termination; modification denied; substantial assets exist to support alimony eligibility.
Whether wife retains continuing need for alimony and whether husband can continue paying.	Canaway argues wife no longer needs alimony given her income; burden on wife to prove need.	Canaway contends wife’s budget shows no need for continued alimony and that husband cannot be compelled to pay.	Court found wife in a delicate balance with continuing need; husband has ability to pay.
Whether the court properly applied the burden of proof for modification under RSA 458:19.	Canaway asserts the burden lies with the recipient to prove continued need.	Canaway asserts he bears the burden to show changed circumstances justify modification.	Burden lies with the moving party; court correctly applied Laflamme standard.
Whether the court correctly awarded wife attorneys’ fees and preserved the issue.	Canaway contends award was improper and not preserved for appeal.	Canaway did not properly preserve the fee issue; error not reviewable.	Issue not preserved; fee award affirmed on other grounds.

Laflamme v. Laflamme, 144 N.H. 524 (N.H. 1999) (burden on movant to show substantial change in circumstances)
Arvenitis v. Arvenitis, 152 N.H. 653 (N.H. 2005) (courts must consider all circumstances when modifying support)
Lurvey v. Lurvey, 148 N.H. 469 (N.H. 2002) (unsustainable exercise of discretion standard)
Noddin v. Noddin, 123 N.H. 73 (N.H. 1983) (change in finances due to fault or dissipation not grounds for modification)
Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547 (N.H. 1961) (obligations from partnering relationships do not affect existing alimony)
Morphy v. Morphy, 114 N.H. 86 (N.H. 1974) (pre-amendment burden on renewal; older standard)
Sarvela v. Sarvela, 154 N.H. 426 (N.H. 2006) (consideration of future facts in modification context)
Rossino v. Rossino, 153 N.H. 367 (N.H. 2006) (modification analysis for alimony; financial change)