In the Matter of Marcus J. Hampers and Kristin C. Hampers
166 N.H. 422
| N.H. | 2014Background
- Marcus and Kristin Hampers litigated post-divorce modifications: Marcus moved to modify child support and alimony; Kristin filed for contempt. The trial court issued rulings on attorney’s fees, calculation of investment income for child support, which tax year to use for “present income,” and repayment of any overpaid support.
- Their 2004 divorce decree included a standing order requiring Marcus to pay Kristin’s reasonable attorney’s fees for any proceeding related to the decree or the child; this provision was litigated on prior appeals.
- The modification petition focused on (a) whether the standing attorney-fees order is enforceable/constitutional, (b) whether capital losses and partnership expenses reduce “investment income” for child support under RSA ch. 458-C, and (c) whether the court should use Marcus’s 2009 or 2010 income to calculate present income and any reimbursement for overpayments.
- The trial court: enforced the standing fees order, declined to allow carryover of capital losses beyond same-year gains, refused to deduct partnership expenses without finding they were reasonable/necessary, and used 2009 income to set child support; it ordered Kristin to reimburse any overpayments.
- The Supreme Court: affirmed some rulings, reversed or vacated others, and remanded for further findings, principally on partnership expense deductibility and the proper tax year for present income.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hampers = husband / Hampers = wife as context) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of standing attorney-fees order | Marcus: order violates due process and equal protection; should be vacated | Kristin: claim precluded by prior appeals; fees order previously upheld | Held for Kristin: res judicata bars Marcus’s constitutional challenge because the issue was decided in prior appeals (Hampers I) |
| Treatment of capital losses for child support | Marcus: allow carryover of excess capital losses (federal tax treatment) to reflect economic reality | Kristin: do not allow carryover; losses beyond gains are principal loss, not current income reduction | Held for Kristin: limit capital losses to offset capital gains only within the same year; carryover would amount to impermissible income averaging and undermine guidelines' objectives |
| Deductibility of partnership investment expenses | Marcus: partnership (pass-through) expenses are necessary costs of producing investment income and should reduce gross income | Kristin: partnership items are reported as deductions on tax return but statute lists income sources in gross; court should count investment income in gross | Held (remanded): expenses may be deductible if they are actually incurred, paid, and reasonable and necessary to produce income; burden on Marcus to prove deductibility — trial court must make specific findings on that record |
| Year used to calculate "present income" and reimbursement of overpayments | Marcus: using 2009 (date of filing) is proper to preserve right to modification and avoid gaming; court properly used 2009 | Kristin: court should use most current (2010) figures if available and reliable; 2009 was anomalously low | Held for Kristin in part: trial court erred in relying on 2009 when 2010 returns were available and no misleading conduct was shown; child support calculation vacated and remanded. On reimbursement, statute amendment governing reimbursement of overpayments is procedural and applies to motions filed after amendment, so it applied here (motion filed 2010) |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275 (2006) (prior appeal addressing and upholding aspects of the standing attorney-fees order)
- Gosselin v. Gosselin, 136 N.H. 350 (1992) (procedure for review of attorney-fee reasonableness)
- Woolsey & Woolsey, 164 N.H. 301 (2012) (self-employment income is net of legitimate business expenses; expenses must be actually incurred, paid, reasonable, necessary)
- In the Matter of Albert & McRae, 155 N.H. 259 (2007) (tax returns are an unreliable guide to income for child support; treatment of pass-through entities)
- In the Matter of Feddersen & Cannon, 149 N.H. 194 (2003) (present income means income available at time of decision; guidance on fluctuations and use of tax returns)
- Rattee v. Rattee, 146 N.H. 44 (2001) (child support should be based on present income; courts should not income-average)
- Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55 (2005) (statutory changes affecting substantive post-divorce rights cannot be applied retroactively; distinguishes procedural amendments)