Opinion ID: 2320067
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Escrow Account

Text: Finally, the respondent argues that the court erred when it ordered that his share of the proceeds of the marital home be held in escrow until he is compensated at the level of his previous employment and is able to pay [the] petitioner the amount of child support he owes under the Guidelines. See RSA 458:21 (2004). While the respondent concedes that [t]rial courts clearly have the authority to provide for security for the payment of child support, he asserts that such security is restricted to those cases where there has been egregious non-payment, or misleading reporting of substantial amounts of income. (Citations omitted.) He contends, [T]here is no basis for the escrow the court required here. RSA 458:21 authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to require security for payment of child support [i]n all cases where alimony or an allowance shall be decreed for a spouse or children. See In the Matter of Feddersen & Cannon, 149 N.H. 194, 200-01, 816 A.2d 1033 (2003). Although the respondent argues that the court may exercise its discretion in this regard only where there has been egregious non-payment, or misleading reporting of substantial amounts of income, RSA 458:21 contains no such limitation. Id. at 201, 816 A.2d 1033. In this case, the trial court required the escrow after finding that the respondent had presented no persuasive evidence that he is not still abusing prescription drugs. . . . As such, given the history of the case, and [his] demeanor and attitude at trial, the Court is not persuaded he will pay as ordered. In light of this finding, we cannot conclude that the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion by ordering that the respondent's share of the proceeds of the marital home be held in escrow to secure child support payments. Affirmed in part; vacated in part; and remanded.