In Re Goodlander
161 N.H. 490
| N.H. | 2011Background
- The parties married in 1982 and have three adult children; Tamposi left employment in 1989 and largely stayed at home thereafter.
- Samuel Tamposi, Sr. funded SAT Trust and EMT sub-trusts, with distributions to beneficiaries including Tamposi since 1995; the trust assets are primarily real estate holdings.
- Goodlander formed and controlled several entities; he drained funds from his children’s custodial accounts and Tamposi’s account to support failing businesses.
- Post-separation (2006) and divorce (2009), the trial court allocated non-trust assets 51/49 to Goodlander and Tamposi respectively, and held EMT Trust distributions to be mere expectancy.
- The court ordered $50,000 annual alimony payable from EMT Trust distributions if Tamposi received such distributions, and treated the UTC as controlling for alimony from trust funds.
- Goodlander appealed on multiple grounds including the treatment of EMT Trust distributions as marital property, retroactive UTC application, alimony computation, division of non-trust assets, Red Sox sale proceeds, and children’s intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trust distributions as marital property | Goodlander: EMT/SAT distributions are marital assets due to Tamposi's vested interest. | Tamposi: distributions are discretionary and only a mere expectancy, not property. | Distributions are mere expectancy; not marital property. |
| Retroactive UTC application | Goodlander: UTC provisions should not apply retroactively to pre-enactment trusts. | Tamposi: UTC applies to trusts created before enactment; retroactive application allowed for vested rights analysis. | UTC retroactive application upheld; no vested right to future EMT Trust distributions. |
| Alimony standard under statutes | Goodlander: UTC alimony framework should determine support; RSA 458:19 standards apply for needs. | Tamposi: UTC limits on alimony from trusts should coexist with RSA 458:19 standards. | UTC limits require vacating and remand for alimony consistent with RSA 458:19 analysis. |
| Division of non-trust assets | Goodlander: Tamposi’s EMT Trust interest warrants greater offset in non-trust assets. | Tamposi: non-trust assets division was appropriate; EMT interest not to be offset beyond misc. | Court did not err; essentially equal division upheld. |
| Red Sox sale proceeds | Goodlander: EMT Trust proceeds from Red Sox sale should be apportioned to Tamposi’s benefit. | Tamposi: EMT Trust distributions are mere expectancy and not assignable to cover alimony directly. | Red Sox sale proceeds properly excluded from marital distribution. |
| Children as intervenors | Goodlander: intervention by children was improper as to adults and interests. | Tamposi: intervenors justified to protect EMT Trust interests and debt concerns. | Intervention not error; allowed given interests and age of children. |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of Chamberlin & Chamberlin, 155 N.H. 13, 918 A.2d 1 (2007) (trust interests and marital property; standard for assets)
- Tuttle v. New Hampshire Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Assoc., 159 N.H. 627, 992 A.2d 624 (2010) (vesting of rights; JUA excess surplus context)
- In re Goldman & Elliott, 151 N.H. 770, 868 A.2d 278 (2005) (definition of vested rights; trust distributions)
- The Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 911 A.2d 14 (2006) (trust interests and equitable division; discretionary vs vested)
- Lawlor v. Lawlor, 123 N.H. 163, 459 A.2d 238 (1983) (legacy as asset in marital distribution)
- Stapleford & Stapleford, 156 N.H. 260, 931 A.2d 1199 (2007) (Intervention by children; adults vs minors)