In the Matter of Landgraf & Landgraf, 324 A.3d 941

Gregory and Natasha Landgraf are undergoing divorce proceedings and have two minor children.
The primary dispute centers on the husband’s child support obligations, specifically regarding certain types of irregular corporate income received by him.
The husband is a 50% shareholder in a subchapter S corporation (NEI), which distributes funds to cover his shareholder tax liability and insurance premiums.
Previous court orders required the husband to pay a percentage of his irregular income as child support; the proper calculation method was appealed and remanded for clarification.
The core legal questions involve whether certain S corporation distributions (for taxes and succession insurance) should count as “income available” for child support calculations.
The case comes before the New Hampshire Supreme Court on interlocutory appeal after denial of both parties’ motions for reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Natasha Landgraf)	Defendant's Argument (Gregory Landgraf)	Held
Are S corporation distributions to pay a shareholder’s income tax liability available for child support?	Yes; these funds are income for support purposes.	No; they are not income because they simply reimburse taxes he must pay.	Yes; such distributions are dividends and available for child support purposes.
Are distributions for succession insurance premiums available for child support?	Yes; these are bonuses and count as income.	No; they are not available income, meant to pay specific company obligations.	Yes; such distributions are bonuses (income) and available for child support purposes.
Should “net income” for support depend on actual employer withholding?	Not specifically briefed; relies on the guidelines calculation.	Calculation should consider actual withholdings.	No; "net income" is calculated per standard state guidelines, not based on actual withholdings by employer.
Should husband be charged with contempt for nonpayment relating to these distributions?	Yes; he failed to pay child support on certain irregular payments.	No; these payments were not income for child support.	Issue not directly decided, but payments are available income for support going forward per ruling.

In the Matter of Albert & McRae, 155 N.H. 259 (N.H. 2007) (discusses S corporation income and availability for child support)
In the Matter of Doherty & Doherty, 168 N.H. 694 (N.H. 2016) (addresses test for availability of income for support purposes)
In the Matter of Jerome & Jerome, 150 N.H. 626 (N.H. 2004) (defines income "available" for child support)
In the Matter of Giacomini & Giacomini, 150 N.H. 498 (N.H. 2004) (distinguishes between actually received and direct payment of funds for support)
In the Matter of Liquidation of Home Ins. Co., 175 N.H. 363 (N.H. 2022) (procedural standard for interlocutory appeal)