In re Nicholson, 164 N.H. 105

Mother and Father divorced in 2000 with three children; final decree includes a Uniform Support Order requiring Father to pay $244 weekly.
In 2007 the oldest child graduated high school; Father contends the decree allowed automatic reductions as each child emancipated, and Mother allegedly agreed to this reduction.
April 2011 Mother filed contempt alleging Father reduced support and paid nothing since April 2009; Father argues the reduction was permissible under the decree and private agreement.
Trial court found no court-ordered recalculation and that Father reduced payments by 1/3 per emancipation; Court cited SO-4B requiring recalculation upon change in number of dependents but found no explicit enforcement for retroactive reduction.
Court acknowledged emancipation of the youngest child on July 11, 2011 terminated Father’s obligation; nevertheless, calculated arrearage without adjusting for emancipation of two older children; held private agreement not enforceable under Laura & Scott.
On appeal, Father argued arrearage should reflect emancipation dates; the court held that the decree and RSA 458:35-c (1992) required retrospective recalculation unless the decree specified differently; remanded for recalculation consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether arrearage must be recalculated retrospectively for emancipation dates	Nicholson contends emancipation triggered reductions and arrears should reflect when each child emancipated.	Mother contends no court-ordered retroactive recalculation and private reductions are unenforceable.	Arrearage must be retrospectively recalculated as emancipation occurred.
Whether private side agreements to modify child support are enforceable	Nicholson argues parties agreed privately to reduce support upon emancipation.	Mother argues private agreement is not enforceable and only court orders may modify support.	Private agreements to modify are not enforceable; only court-ordered changes matter.
Whether the controlling statute at the time required retrospective recalculation	Nicholson asserts RSA 458:35-c (1992) allowed adjustments to remain until emancipation unless the decree specified otherwise.	Mother contends the statute does not require retrospective recalculation absent a court order.	Statute in force at divorce controlled; it permitted retrospective recalculation if the decree specified differently.

In the Matter of Scott & Pierce, 160 N.H. 354 (N.H. 2010) (court may consider retrospective recalculation of support when governed by applicable statutes)
In the Matter of Laura & Scott, 161 N.H. 333 (N.H. 2010) (private agreement cannot modify court-ordered child support)
In the Matter of Johnson & Johnson, 158 N.H. 555 (N.H. 2009) (statutory framework governing when support terminates)
Sommers v. Sommers, 143 N.H. 686 (N.H. 1999) (interpretation of divorce decrees and intent of stipulations)