Renee M. Brooks v. Steven Allen, 168 N.H. 707

Background

Renee Brooks and Steven Allen cohabited ~20 years (1993–2013), had one child, and acquired multiple properties used by the family: Haverhill (sold), Merrimac (sold), Atkinson (deed/mortgage in Allen’s name 1998), and Northwood (purchased 2007 as joint tenants).
The parties shared household responsibilities; Allen provided the majority of income and funded most mortgage payments and renovations. Brooks contributed domestic support and later earned nursing income.
The parties executed several joint mortgages/HELOCs (2003, 2010, 2012) on the Atkinson and Northwood properties; Allen often controlled and alone withdrew funds despite joint liability.
Brooks filed a petition for partition (March 2013) seeking equitable determinations and sale/distribution of the Northwood property and adjudication of interests in Atkinson; Allen cross-petitioned to keep Northwood and dismiss count two.
The superior court found the parties operated as a domestic partnership for acquiring and maintaining property, apportioned equitable interests (generally 60/40 favoring Allen), computed Brooks’s monetary shares in Northwood (~$70,209.19) and Atkinson (~$50,217), and ordered sale/refinance or payment.
Allen appealed, arguing the court exceeded RSA ch. 547-C authority by issuing a “divorce-like” equitable split and making unsupported factual findings about contributions and title history.

Issues

Issue	Brooks’s Argument	Allen’s Argument	Held
Whether RSA ch. 547‑C permits equitable division among unmarried cohabitants in partition actions	RSA 547‑C authorizes broad equitable relief to determine and adjust interests in property of any person with an undivided legal or equitable interest	Partition statute cannot be used to impose divorce-like property distribution on unmarried parties	Court upheld use of RSA 547‑C to equitably determine and divide interests; not a divorce remedy but an authorized equitable partition analysis
Proper consideration of contributions and unequal split	Court should consider direct/indirect contributions and may depart from 50/50 where disparities exist	Allen argued court improperly treated his sole payments as joint contributions and reached a 60/40 split without adequate explanation	Court may consider contributions and disparities per RSA 547‑C:29; 60/40 split supported by findings that Allen contributed more and more consistently
Adequacy of factual findings regarding title, payments, and financing history	Brooks relied on court’s factual findings about joint purchases, down payments, and refinancing to support equitable shares	Allen contended three factual findings (Merrimac purchase, Atkinson down payment source, 1998 mortgage payoff) were unsupported and plainly erroneous	Appellate court defers to trial court’s credibility resolutions; found findings supported by record and not legally erroneous
Whether trial court abused discretion in shape of equitable relief (unsustainable exercise of discretion)	Relief was within court’s broad equitable powers under partition statute and tailored to facts	Allen argued the order was unreasonable and tantamount to unjustified property redistribution	Court applied correct standard, examined statutory factors, and did not abuse discretion; affirmed trial court’s order

Key Cases Cited

Conant v. O’Meara, 167 N.H. 644 (recognizing standard for reviewing equitable relief)
Chase v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co., 155 N.H. 19 (trial court’s broad equitable powers and review standard)
Bartlett v. Bartlett, 116 N.H. 269 (partition is equitable and court may adjust claims for fair division)
Joan S. v. John S., 121 N.H. 96 (refusal to apply divorce statutes to unmarried cohabitants but permitting equitable adjudication of property rights)
Tapley v. Tapley, 122 N.H. 727 (limits on recovery for domestic services between unmarried cohabitants)
In the Matter of Mallett & Mallett, 163 N.H. 202 (family division jurisdiction limits over unmarried parties and divorce remedies)
DeLucca v. DeLucca, 152 N.H. 100 (deference to trial court on credibility and factual resolutions in partition cases)
Foley v. Wheelock, 157 N.H. 329 (party claiming unsustainable exercise of discretion must show ruling unreasonable)
State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295 (standard for reviewing discretionary judgments)
In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H. 175 (appellate review of trial court findings)