In the Matter of Holly Doherty and William Doherty
168 N.H. 694
| N.H. | 2016Background
- Parties divorced in 2010 by stipulation incorporated into decree; Husband agreed to pay ~$3,400/month child support and ~$1,600/month alimony (total ~$5,000) with alimony for 15 years and a provision to reallocate if child support changed.
- By 2014 one child reached majority; Husband filed to modify child support and alimony; Wife moved for contempt asserting large arrears.
- At hearing the trial court found Wife’s employment income dropped and she was receiving foster-care payments (~$5,700/month then reduced to ~$2,400); court included those payments in her gross income, set guideline child support at $968/month, and terminated Husband’s ongoing alimony (retroactive to July 14, 2014).
- Wife appealed arguing (inter alia) the foster payments should be excluded from gross income, the court erred in terminating alimony, the court failed to account for reduced foster payments and related expenses, and the family division lacked jurisdiction to enforce a stipulation allocating future boundary-litigation fees.
- Husband cross-appealed seeking an earlier retroactive effective date for alimony modification and contesting the trial court’s calculation of child support arrearages.
- Supreme Court: affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded — affirmed inclusion of foster payments absent record showing they were excluded public-assistance, vacated gross-income figure to require deduction for reduced payments and actual care expenses, vacated alimony termination (to be redetermined), reversed denial of family-division jurisdiction over future litigation fees, and affirmed child-support arrearage finding.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether foster-care payments paid to Wife should be included in her gross income for support calculations | Foster payments are used to care for adults and are excluded as "aid to the permanently and totally disabled" or by analogy to federal tax exclusion | Payments fit RSA 458-C:2 IV definition of gross income absent proof they derive from excluded public-assistance program; federal tax treatment irrelevant | Included: Court affirmed inclusion because record lacked evidence payments were from an excluded public-assistance program and federal tax rules are not controlling |
| Whether trial court should have adjusted Wife’s gross income for the removal of one foster adult and deducted actual care expenses | Court should reduce gross income to reflect decreased payments and deduct reasonable, necessary expenses actually incurred | Husband did not dispute reduction but trial court did not address it | Vacated gross-income finding and remanded: trial court must account for reduced payments and deduct reasonable, necessary expenses actually incurred and paid |
| Whether termination of Husband’s ongoing alimony was proper | Wife: significant drop in her income supports continuation of alimony; modification unwarranted absent unforeseen substantial change | Husband: changed circumstances and parties’ stipulation justified modification/termination | Vacated and remanded: trial court had discretion to revisit alimony given unforeseen significant changes and stipulation terms, but termination relied on gross-income findings now vacated — alimony must be redetermined on remand |
| Whether family-division court lacked jurisdiction to enforce stipulation allocating future boundary-litigation fees | Court had jurisdiction to enforce allocation of anticipated marital litigation expenses as marital debt | Trial court held it could only enforce debts existing at decree and not post-decree debt | Reversed: family division has jurisdiction to interpret/enforce agreement allocating anticipated post-decree litigation expenses as marital debt |
| Whether alimony modification could be made retroactive earlier than date of notice (July 14, 2014) | Husband: alimony differs from child support so retroactive date could precede notice or reflect stipulation | Wife: retroactivity limited by notice rules as interpreted by case law | Denied: retroactive modification of alimony cannot predate the opposing party’s notice of the modification petition (Birmingham controlling) |
| Whether trial court’s arrearage calculation ($~73,100) was supported by the record | Wife: her records were credible and support $73,100 arrearage | Husband: his documentary records (bank receipts) show lower arrearage (~$47,400) and trial court miscredited evidence | Affirmed: appellate court defers to trial court credibility findings; Husband’s submitted records were partially illegible and did not conclusively compel a different result |
Key Cases Cited
- Canaway v. Canaway, 161 N.H. 286 (standard for modifying support and inquiry into changed circumstances)
- Woolsey v. Woolsey, 164 N.H. 301 (definition of income/self-employment income and deduction of necessary expenses)
- Hampers v. Hampers, 166 N.H. 422 (federal tax treatment of payments not controlling for child-support gross-income definition)
- LaRocque v. LaRocque, 164 N.H. 148 (broad statutory definition of gross income under child-support statute)
- Maves v. Moore, 166 N.H. 564 (treatment of federal tax definitions vis-à-vis child-support income)
- Laflamme v. Laflamme, 144 N.H. 524 (foreseeability of changes bars modification of alimony)
- Arvenitis v. Arvenitis, 152 N.H. 653 (court must consider stipulation terms when modifying support)
- Maldini v. Maldini, 168 N.H. 191 (family division jurisdiction to interpret/enforce agreements allocating yet-to-be-assessed marital liabilities)
- Birmingham v. Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51 (retroactive alimony modifications are limited by notice requirements similar to child support)