Opinion ID: 2548945
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alimony Standard

Text: Goodlander next argues that the trial court erred in determining alimony based upon the UTC in contravention of the alimony provisions of RSA 458:19 (Supp.2010). See RSA 564-B:5-503(b)(2). We hold that the trial court erred in its application of the controlling law. RSA 458:19 sets forth the standards for an award of alimony. It provides: Upon motion of either party for alimony payments, the court shall make orders for the payment of alimony to the party in need of alimony ... [if] the court finds that: (a) The party in need lacks sufficient income, property, or both, including property apportioned in accordance with RSA 458:16-a [regarding property division], to provide for such party's reasonable needs, taking into account the style of living to which the parties have become accustomed during the marriage; and (b) The party from whom alimony is sought is able to meet reasonable needs while meeting those of the party seeking alimony, taking into account the style of living to which the parties have become accustomed during the marriage; and (c) The party in need is unable to be self-supporting through appropriate employment at a standard of living that meets reasonable needs.... RSA 458:19, I (Supp.2010). RSA 458:19, IV(b) further provides: In determining the amount of alimony, the court shall consider the length of the marriage; the age, health, social or economic status, occupation, amount and sources of income, the property awarded under RSA 458:16-a, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, and needs of each of the parties; the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income; the fault of either party as defined in RSA 458:16-a, II( l ); and the federal tax consequences of the order. The UTC's provisions are applicable only to a limited, specified extent. In general: A beneficiary may not transfer an interest in a trust in violation of a valid spendthrift provision and, except as otherwise provided [herein], a creditor or assignee of the beneficiary may not reach the interest or a distribution by the trustee before its receipt by the beneficiary. RSA 564-B:5-502(c). However, the UTC sets forth a limited exception to this general rule. A spendthrift provision is unenforceable against: a beneficiary's spouse or former spouse who has a judgment or court order against the beneficiary for alimony but only for and to the extent that such judgment or court order expressly specifies the alimony amount attributable to the most basic food, shelter and medical needs of the spouse or former spouse.... RSA 564-B:5-503(b)(2). The UTC further states: To the extent a trustee has not complied with a standard of distribution or has abused a discretion ... the court shall direct the trustee to pay to the . . . former spouse such amount as is equitable under the circumstances but not more than the amount the trustee would have been required to distribute to or for the benefit of the beneficiary had the trustee complied with the standard or not abused the discretion and with respect to alimony, only for and to the extent that the judgment or court order expressly specifies the alimony amount attributable to the most basic food, shelter, and medical needs of the spouse or former spouse. RSA 564-B:5-504(c)(2). Goodlander argues that for the trial court to have applied the UTC most basic needs provision, it must have concluded that it repealed, either expressly or by implication, the provisions of RSA 458:19. We disagree with this assertion and conclude that a plain reading of the statutes evinces that RSA 458:19 is the standard for determining alimony, while the UTC restricts the amount of alimony that may be paid from funds of an irrevocable trust containing a spendthrift provision. See RSA 564-B:5-503(b)(2). The statutory provisions are therefore not conflicting; but for the UTC's limited exception that allows access to a trust's funds to meet a former spouse's basic needs, a trust beneficiary's interest would not be reachable by that former spouse prior to receipt by the beneficiary. Thus, the UTC protects, but only to a limited extent, a trust beneficiary's former spouse who has been awarded alimony under the standard set forth in RSA 458:19. Here, it is undisputed that Goodlander has generated no steady income since 2003 and that Tamposi has not been steadily employed since 1992. Moreover, as between the parties, Goodlander was awarded fifty-one percent of the income-generating non-trust assets, to offset the award of the marital home to Tamposi. Notwithstanding the property division, however, the trial court found Goodlander was entitled to alimony based on the current income available to him for support. In so finding, the trial court found that an award of alimony was appropriate because Mr. Goodlander has no funds with which to support himself in even a modest lifestyle, which is not what the parties enjoyed during the marriage, while Tamposi has benefited from some distributions from the EMT Trusts. Nevertheless, the trial court awarded Goodlander alimony contingent upon Tamposi receiving distributions from the EMT Trust, and then only to meet his most basic needs. Specifically, the trial court determined, Mr. Goodlander is awarded $50,000 per year in alimony to meet his `most basic needs'.... Ms. Tamposi shall pay him fifty percent of any distribution she receives from the EMT Trusts up to $50,000 per calendar year, which the EMT Trust trustee shall pay to him directly. While the trial court expressly specified the amount of alimony it found attributable to Goodlander's most basic needs, it erred in failing to first conduct the requisite analysis of Goodlander's reasonable needs under RSA 458:19, as well as Tamposi's ability to meet those needs. Rather than making findings as to Goodlander's reasonable needs, the trial court made findings only as to his most basic needs, and then made payment of that amount contingent on Tamposi's receipt of trust distributions. This was error. Under the provisions of the UTC, a former spouse is entitled to seek a trust distribution to meet his or her most basic needs regardless of whether a trustee makes a distribution to the beneficiary. See RSA 564-B:5-503(b)(2); RSA 564-B:5-504(c)(2). Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's alimony order and remand to the trial court to determine an award of alimony consistent with this opinion.