In the Matter of Melissa McCauley and Richard McCauley, 2020-0059

Background

Melissa and Richard McCauley divorced after a five-day trial in the Circuit Court (Judge Burns); final decree distributed assets, debts, and alimony and Melissa appealed.
Trial court awarded Melissa 60% of the marital portion of Richard’s military pension (with division to follow the military formula); Melissa had requested 70%.
On appeal Melissa argued for the first time that 10 U.S.C. § 1408(e)(1) limits her to 50% of disposable retired pay; the court declined to decide that statutory interpretation because the issue was not preserved and the law was unsettled.
The trial court ordered sale of a house titled to both but mortgaged only in Richard’s name, awarding net proceeds 60% to Melissa and 40% to Richard, concluding Melissa could not refinance and joint ownership was impractical.
The court allocated the majority of marital debt to Richard and held Melissa responsible for substantial debt in her own name incurred after separation.
The trial court found Melissa not disabled for alimony purposes (no formal disability adjudication) and awarded alimony consistent with its findings; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court exceeded permissible award of military pension by giving >50% of disposable retired pay	Melissa: §1408(e)(1) caps award at 50% of disposable retired pay	Richard: Issue not raised below; §1408(e)(1) does not impose a 50% limit as Melissa claims	Not decided on merits — issue not preserved and law was unsettled, so no plain-error review
Whether trial court erred by ordering sale of house titled to both (non-marital home)	Melissa: Parties intended house to be hers; sale leaves her homeless	Richard: Joint ownership + mortgage in his name make sale necessary; Melissa cannot refinance	Affirmed — court reasonably found sale the only realistic solution given mortgage and Melissa’s finances
Whether allocation of debt was improper	Melissa: All debt through decree date should be treated as marital debt; court mischaracterized debts and burdened her disproportionately	Richard: Court noted Melissa incurred substantial post-separation debt in her name and allocated accordingly	Affirmed — court’s allocation (husband assumes majority of marital debt; wife keeps debts in her name) was reasonable
Whether trial court erred in alimony by finding Melissa not disabled	Melissa: Her health conditions limit work — effectively disabled despite no formal adjudication	Richard: Lack of credible evidence of formal disability supports trial court’s finding she is not disabled	Affirmed — trial court’s credibility findings supported conclusion she was not disabled and award stands

Key Cases Cited

Blagbrough Family Realty Trust v. A & T Forest Prods., 155 N.H. 29 (2007) (issues not raised below are not preserved for appeal)
State v. Ruiz, 170 N.H. 553 (2018) (plain-error review inappropriate where governing law was unsettled at trial)
In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31 (2002) (trial court has broad discretion in property distribution)
In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512 (2013) (appellate courts defer to trial court on property and alimony absent unsustainable discretion)
In the Matter of Silva & Silva, 171 N.H. 1 (2018) (findings supported by evidence will stand on appeal)
Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774 (2003) (trial court’s credibility and evidentiary weight determinations are entitled to deference)
Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737 (2014) (appellant bears burden to demonstrate reversible error)
In re Estate of King, 149 N.H. 226 (2003) (issues not briefed on appeal are waived)
Stout v. Stout, 144 So. 3d 177 (Miss. Ct. App. 2013) (discusses split of authority on interpretation of 10 U.S.C. § 1408)