Opinion ID: 2298131
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Order to Pay Respondent $47,000

Text: The petitioner next contends that the trial court erred when it ordered him to pay the respondent $47,000 from his trust distributions. He argues that because, by the time of the final hearing, he had in fact spentor `dissipated' essentially the entire amount of the distributions, they no longer constituted property that belong[ed] to him, and, thus, could not be divided. RSA 458:16-a, I. He argues that the record clearly shows [he] `squandered' and no longer possessed the money the trial court divided. Because this money was no longer ... among the `tangible and intangible property and assets, real or personal belonging to' the petitioner, ... [it] was not ... `property' subject to ... equitable distribution. See In the Matter of Chamberlin & Chamberlin, 155 N.H. at 17-18, 918 A.2d 1 (corpus of irrevocable charitable trust established by spouses belonged to neither spouse and, thus, was not subject to equitable distribution; however, because parties retained right to receive distributions of interest from trust, this right was property subject to equitable distribution). We reject the petitioner's overly technical construction of RSA 458:16-a, I. Given the purpose of RSA 458:16-a (2004), which is to achieve equity, we hold that it would be contrary to legislative intent to permit one spouse to squander marital property and render it impossible to make an equitable award of property. Sharp v. Sharp, 58 Md.App. 386, 473 A.2d 499, 505 (1984). [C]onsistent with the equitable purpose of distribution under statutes like [RSA 458:16-a], courts have held that dissipated property must be distributed like any other, even though it no longer exists. Herron v. Johnson, 714 A.2d 783, 786 (D.C.1998); see A.I.D. v. P.M.D., 408 A.2d 940, 943 (Del.1979). Courts have ruled that when property is intentionally dissipated to avoid its inclusion in the property to be equitably distributed, such intentional dissipation is no more than a fraud on marital rights. Sharp, 473 A.2d at 505. In such a case, courts treat the dissipated assets ... as if they were existing marital property, and then [either] constructively award[ ] [them] to the dissipating spouse as part of that spouse's share of the marital estate, or, if insufficient assets remain to compensate the innocent spouse, order the dissipating spouse to pay a monetary award. 2 B. Turner, Equitable Distribution of Property § 6:105, at 553-54 (3d ed.2005). In the instant case, we hold that, having found that the petitioner dissipated his trust distributions, the only marital asset, the trial court did not err when it ordered him to pay the respondent her share of them.