THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2023-0428, In the Matter of Kelly Lavoie and 

Justin Lavoie, the court on July 15, 2024, issued the following 

order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted 

on appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See

Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The respondent, Justin Lavoie (husband), appeals the final 

decree of the Circuit Court (Alfano, J.), in his divorce from the petitioner, Kelly 

Lavoie (wife). He argues that the trial court erred in: (1) ordering an unequal 

property division; (2) valuing the marital home; and (3) denying his request for 

child support. We affirm.

The husband first argues that the trial court erred in ordering an 

unequal property division without stating its reasons for the disparity. “The 

trial court is afforded broad discretion in determining matters of property 

distribution when fashioning a final divorce decree.” In the Matter of Sanborn

& Bart, 174 N.H. 343, 353 (2021). “We will not overturn a trial court’s decision 

on these matters absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion or an error of 

law.” Id. “If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence 

presented, they will stand.” Id. In ordering an equitable division of property 

between the parties, the court “shall presume that an equal division is an 

equitable distribution of property, . . . unless the court decides that an equal 

division would not be appropriate or equitable after considering one or more” 

enumerated factors. RSA 458:16-a, II (2018).

The trial court is required to “specify written reasons for the division of 

property which it orders.” RSA 458:16-a, IV (2018). If the “court concludes 

that an unequal distribution of property is warranted, it should state its 

reasons and make specific findings and rulings supporting its decision.” In the 

Matter of Dube & Dube, 163 N.H. 575, 582 (2012). A court may satisfy this 

requirement by citing facts from the record that reflect the factors listed in RSA 

458:16-a. Id.

The husband argues that “[t]he large disparity in the distribution could 

have been easily rectified by dividing the proceeds of the [wife’s] NS1 stock

[options],” which were valued at $90,000, rather than awarding them entirely 

to her. However, the court awarded the parties’ condominium, in which they

had approximately $200,000 in equity, entirely to the husband. The court 

explained that it awarded the stock options entirely to the wife to offset the 

award of the condominium entirely to the husband. We conclude the record 
2

establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the trial court’s property 

division, see Sanborn, 174 N.H at 353, and that the court made sufficient 

written findings to support its decision, see Dube, 163 N.H. at 582-83.

The husband next argues that the trial court erred in valuing the marital 

home at $640,000. He asserts that, on November 8, 2022, the parties 

stipulated that the value was $580,000. The record supports the trial court’s 

finding that, on May 23, 2023, the second day of trial, the parties stipulated 

that the value of the marital home was approximately $640,000, with a 

mortgage debt of approximately $229,000, resulting in approximately $411,000 

in equity to be divided equally between them. Accordingly, we find no error. 

See Sanborn, 174 N.H at 353.

Finally, the husband argues that the trial court erred in denying his 

request for child support. We will not disturb the trial court’s rulings regarding 

child support absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion or an error of law. 

In the Matter of Ndyaija & Ndyaija, 173 N.H. 127, 140 (2020). There is a 

rebuttable presumption that a child support award calculated under the 

guidelines is the correct amount of child support. Id. at 141; RSA 458-C:4, II 

(2018). The presumption may be overcome, and the trial court may deviate 

from the guidelines, when a party shows by a preponderance of the evidence 

that the application of the guidelines would be “unjust or inappropriate,” RSA 

458-C:4, II, because of “[s]pecial circumstances” considered “in light of the best 

interests of the child.” RSA 458-C:5, I (2018); Ndyaija, 173 N.H. at 142.

In this case, the court ordered a deviation from the child support 

guidelines based upon its finding that an order of no child support “will allow 

both parties to maintain a home and lifestyle for the child.” Based upon this 

record, we cannot conclude that the trial court unsustainably exercised its 

discretion or erred as a matter of law in denying the husband’s request for 

child support. See Ndyaija, 173 N.H. at 140.

The husband raises numerous issues in his reply brief that he did not 

raise in his opening brief. We do not consider issues raised for the first time on 

appeal in a reply brief. Panas v. Harakis & K-Mart Corp., 129 N.H. 591, 617-

18 (1987).

Affirmed.

MacDonald, C.J., and Bassett, Hantz Marconi, Donovan, and Countway,

JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,

 Clerk