Opinion ID: 2935894
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Eminent Domain Litigation Proceeds

Text: Finally, the respondent argues that the Circuit Court (Foley, J.) erred by denying his motion to dismiss the petitioner’s motion to correct property distribution, in which she sought to amend the property distribution to account for proceeds obtained from eminent domain litigation regarding one of the parties’ properties, and erred by thereafter reallocating the proceeds. In the final decree, the trial court found that the respondent had initiated an action contesting the amount of compensation received from the State of New Hampshire pursuant to an eminent domain action regarding one of the parties’ properties. Because the court found that the petitioner had little, if any, role in the litigation, the court awarded any net proceeds from the action to the respondent as “an offset of the difference in asset distribution between the parties.” After the petitioner filed her appeal in this case, a jury returned a substantial verdict in the eminent domain litigation. The petitioner then moved for partial remand and to stay the appellate process, requesting that we remand the case to the trial court to amend the property distribution to account for the proceeds. We stayed the petitioner’s appeal and remanded to the trial court. Upon remand, the trial court found that “strict application” of the divorce decree would be inequitable and, therefore, it amended the property distribution by awarding 20 percent of the net proceeds from the eminent domain litigation to the petitioner and the balance to the respondent. On appeal, the respondent argues that the petitioner failed to preserve her challenge to the award from the eminent domain litigation and, therefore, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the property distribution. He further contends, however, that even if the court had jurisdiction, it erred by allocating 20 percent of the proceeds to the petitioner. The petitioner crossappeals, arguing that the trial court properly exercised its jurisdiction, but that it should have awarded her a greater percentage of the proceeds. Because we have vacated the trial court’s entire property distribution, we need not address these arguments at this juncture. Affirmed in part; vacated in part; and remanded. DALIANIS, C.J., and LYNN and BASSETT, JJ., concurred. 9