In the Matter of John G. Lyon and Kimberly Anne White Lyon
166 N.H. 315
| N.H. | 2014Background
- Husband and Wife divorced in May 2007; decree incorporated a stipulation awarding Wife permanent alimony: $3,000/mo (Jan–Jun 2007) then $5,000/mo (Jul 2007–Jun 30, 2012) or until death.
- Wife filed a petition on May 31, 2012 to renew/extend the expiring permanent alimony for another three years, alleging need (new ADHD diagnosis and need for medication to complete education).
- Husband moved for summary judgment arguing the Wife failed to show an unforeseeable substantial change in circumstances required to extend alimony.
- Wife objected but failed to submit supporting affidavits or competent evidence; trial court accepted Husband’s presented facts as true and granted summary judgment for Husband.
- Trial court applied the “substantial change of circumstances” standard used for alimony modification and denied Wife’s renewal petition; Wife appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What legal standard governs a petition to renew an expired definite-term permanent alimony award? | Renewal petitions need only show continuing need and payer’s ability to pay (same as initial award under RSA 458:19 I). | The "substantial change in circumstances" standard for modification applies to renewals as well. | The trial court erred by applying the substantial-change test; the correct standard is the long-standing judicial standard requiring the moving party (the former alimony recipient) to establish that justice requires renewal given all circumstances. Case remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Laflamme v. Laflamme, 144 N.H. 524 (discusses substantial-change standard for modifying alimony)
- Dichiara v. Sanborn Reg’l. Sch. Dist., 82 A.3d 225 (procedural standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- In the Matter of Canaway & Canaway, 161 N.H. 286 (distinguishes motions for new alimony payments under RSA 458:19 I)
- In the Matter of Kenick & Bailey, 156 N.H. 356 (legislative history explaining 2001 amendments created a five-year limitations period)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 108 N.H. 193 (establishes burden: party seeking renewal must show justice requires extension under present circumstances)
- Walker v. Walker, 133 N.H. 413 (applies renewal/extension standards)
- Henry v. Henry, 129 N.H. 159 (applies renewal/extension standards)
- Healey v. Healey, 117 N.H. 618 (applies renewal/extension standards)