Opinion ID: 2330409
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Division of the Assets

Text: Both parties challenge the trial court's division of the assets as unsupported by the evidence. The respondent also argues that the trial court failed to adequately consider the fault of the petitioner in dividing them. The trial court awarded the marital residence to the respondent, citing the fault of the petitioner under RSA 458:7, V and further citing concern that the parties' daughter maintain a stable living environment in the marital home. The court then ruled that an equitable division of the parties' remaining assets is appropriate. RSA 458:16-a, II creates a presumption that equal distribution of marital property is equitable. Absent special circumstances, the court must make the distribution as equal as possible. Hampers, 154 N.H. at 285, 911 A.2d 14 (quotation and citation omitted). The statute enumerates various factors for the court to consider, such as the length of the marriage, the ability of the parties to provide for their own needs, the needs of the custodial parent, the contribution of each party during the marriage, retirement accounts, and the fault of either party. Id. ; RSA 458:16-a, II. Additionally, the court may consider any other factor it deems relevant in equitably distributing the parties' assets. RSA 458:16-a, II( o ). A trial court is not precluded, however, from awarding a particular asset in its entirety to one party. As we afford trial courts broad discretion in determining matters of property distribution in fashioning a final divorce decree, we will not overturn the trial court's decision absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion. If the court's findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand. Hampers, 154 N.H. at 285, 911 A.2d 14 (quotations, citations and brackets omitted). [I]f 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. Bursey v. Bursey, 145 N.H. 283, 286, 761 A.2d 491 (2000) (quotation omitted); see RSA 458:16-a, IV (2004). The petitioner argues that the trial court erred when it relied upon fault grounds to award the marital home to the respondent. Under RSA 458:16-a, II( l ), the trial court may order an unequal distribution of assets if it finds that [t]he fault of either party as specified in RSA 458:7 . . . caused the breakdown of the marriage and: (1) Caused substantial physical or mental pain and suffering; or (2) Resulted in substantial economic loss to the marital estate or the injured party. The trial court found that the petitioner's fault caused the irremediable breakdown of the parties' marriage and caused the respondent to suffer significant emotional distress. As there is support in the record for these findings, we uphold them and hold that the trial court did not err when it relied upon fault grounds to award the marital home to the respondent. In light of this conclusion, we need not address the petitioner's alternative assertion that there was no evidence to support a finding that his treatment of the respondent resulted in substantial economic loss to her or to the marital estate. The petitioner also argues that the court unequally divided the parties' remaining assets by awarding the respondent her entire retirement account, which gained well over $90,000.00 during the marriage. The respondent counters that the assets were divided unequally in favor of the petitioner, considering a $48,000 debt she has paid off, which includes the parties' joint debt as well as debt accrued by the petitioner under the respondent's name, and the advances the petitioner has received during the litigation. The respondent also argues that the court gave inadequate weight to the petitioner's fault in dividing the parties' assets. The trial court found that after the award of the marital home to the respondent, an equitable division of the parties' remaining assets was proper in light of the evidence before it. Given the unsustainable exercise of discretion standard we must apply, the appealing party must show that the trial court's ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his or her case. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296, 787 A.2d 175 (2001). The record before us, however, does not contain account records, property assessments or any other form of valuation for the assets in dispute. Due to the absence of evidence that clearly shows the asset division was inequitable, neither party has demonstrated on appeal that the trial court's ruling was clearly unreasonable. See Bean, 151 N.H. at 250, 855 A.2d 564; Lambert, 147 N.H. at 296, 787 A.2d 175. The respondent further argues that the court erred in failing to reaffirm a previous order directing that the GAL fees be paid from the parties' joint funds, which resulted in the respondent shouldering this entire amount and contributed to the inequitable asset distribution. We disagree. In its final order, the court ordered that the respondent pay the GAL expenses, and took this into account when denying the petitioner's request for retroactive alimony. We cannot say, therefore, based upon the record before us, that the trial court's ruling on this issue was clearly unreasonable. Accordingly, we affirm the remainder of the court's order dividing the parties' assets.