In re Heinrich
164 N.H. 357
N.H.2012Background
- Kenneth Heinrich seeks to overturn a divorce decree in the 10th Circuit Family Division, arguing the lump sum workers’ compensation award should not be equitably distributed, or should be distributed unequally.
- Lump sum award: $241,570, chosen instead of weekly payments, received day before filing for divorce.
- Trial court held the lump sum is property subject to equitable distribution under RSA 458:16-a, I, and ordered an equal division.
- Court rejected Heinrich’s argument to treat the award as non-marital income and adopted a mechanistic approach to division.
- Court found the equal split supported by long marriage, respondent’s need for flexible work, petitioner’s separate SS income, home ownership, and remaining assets being divided evenly.
- Appeal confirmed the trial court’s determination and distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lump sum workers’ compensation award is property subject to equitable distribution | Petitioner contends the award is income, not property | Respondent argues it is property subject to distribution | Yes, it is subject to equitable distribution |
| Whether an equal division of the lump sum award is equitable | Equal division may not be fair given circumstances | Trial court properly balanced factors for equal division | Yes, equal division constitutes a sustainable discretion |
| Whether the mechanistic approach should govern division of workers’ comp awards | Petitioner urges Valence-like exception and analytical approach | Court should apply mechanistic approach consistent with statute | Mechanistic approach applies; no Valence exception required |
| Whether the trial court provided sufficient written findings to justify the division | (Argument not favorable) | Court made adequate findings citing RSA 458:16-a factors | Yes, findings were sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Chamberlin & Chamberlin, 155 N.H. 13 (2007) (defines scope of equitable distribution review in NH)
- Holliday v. Holliday, 139 N.H. 213 (1994) (property subject to distribution includes assets acquired before decree)
- Preston v. Preston, 147 N.H. 48 (2001) (mechanistic approach preferred over analytical for NH statutory scheme)
- Valence v. Valence, 147 N.H. 663 (2002) (discussed stock options; backdrop for exceptions to mechanistic approach)
- Sukerman v. Sukerman, 159 N.H. 565 (2009) (equitable distribution of certain pension-like benefits)
- Schriner v. Schriner, 695 N.W.2d 493 (Iowa 2005) (treatment of workers’ compensation as divisible asset; relevance to NH approach)
- Watterworth & Watterworth, 149 N.H. 442 (2003) (ascertainable value reduces need for complex apportionment)
- In re Estate of King, 149 N.H. 226 (2003) (issues not briefed waived)
- Henry v. Henry, 163 N.H. 175 (2012) (RSA 458:16-a factors; equal distribution presumption)