In the Matter of Sandra L. Patient and Marcel C. Patient, Jr., 169 A.3d 465

Parties divorced in 2002 by stipulated decree; respondent (Marcel Patient Jr.) agreed to provide medical and dental insurance for petitioner (Sandra Patient) "until [he] remarried."
The decree contained no explicit notice requirement regarding remarriage or insurance termination.
Respondent remarried in July 2015, which terminated petitioner’s coverage effective July 1, 2015; petitioner learned of the remarriage and cancellation on August 27, 2015.
Between July 1 and August 27, petitioner incurred $5,105.29 in uninsured medical expenses and sought reimbursement from respondent in the trial court.
Trial court found an implied notice requirement in the stipulated decree and ordered respondent to reimburse petitioner $5,105.29; respondent appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a notice requirement can be implied into the stipulated divorce decree	Patient argued the decree implied respondent must give advance notice of remarriage so she could secure alternative coverage	Patient (respondent) argued parol evidence rule and plain terms prohibit implying a notice term not in the decree	Court held an implied notice requirement was proper because it was necessary to effectuate the parties’ intent
Whether parol evidence rule bars adding terms to an unambiguous decree	Patient: implied term is drawn from the decree's purpose and not extrinsic evidence	Respondent: court cannot add terms to an unambiguous written agreement	Court held parol evidence rule not implicated; court relied on the decree's language and intent, not extrinsic evidence
Whether the remarriage event placed unique knowledge and duty on respondent to notify	Patient argued remarriage was within respondent’s unique knowledge and notice was necessary	Respondent argued no express duty existed and he had no obligation to notify	Court held remarriage was within respondent’s unique knowledge and notice was necessary to prevent undermining the decree’s purpose
Whether unraised or unbriefed issues are waived on appeal	N/A	Respondent raised additional issues but did not brief them	Court deemed unraised/unbriefed issues waived

Parkhurst v. Gibson, 133 N.H. 57 (1990) (parol evidence rule prohibits extrinsic evidence to vary unambiguous contract terms)
Miller v. Miller, 133 N.H. 587 (1990) (interpretation of stipulations requires examining parties' intent and the agreement as a whole)
Estate of Frederick v. Frederick, 141 N.H. 530 (1996) (interpretation of written decrees is a question of law reviewed de novo)
Laconia Clinic, Inc. v. Cullen, 119 N.H. 804 (1979) (terms plainly or necessarily implied in a contract are as binding as expressed terms)
Bank v. Sinclair, 60 N.H. 100 (1880) (when a triggering event is within one party's unique knowledge, notice of the event may be implied)
Fischer v. City of Dover, 131 N.H. 469 (1989) (court may imply obligations necessary to effectuate an agreement's intent)