Opinion ID: 1990002
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Annual Cost of Living Increase

Text: The husband contends next that the court erred by subjecting the alimony award to an annual cost-of-living increase. Specifically, he argues that, because an alimony award can only be modified upon a proper showing of changed circumstances, In the Matter of Arvenitis & Arvenitis, 152 N.H. 653, 655, 886 A.2d 1025 (2005), it cannot be made subject to the consumer price index, which is unrelated to the financial circumstances of the parties. See RSA 458:19. We agree. While we have not yet had occasion to consider this precise issue, we recently held that child support awards cannot be made subject to automatic cost-of-living escalators in In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 64-65, 871 A.2d 30 (2005). There, the parties had agreed to a uniform support order that required the father to pay child support, subject to annual adjustment for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. Id. at 56, 871 A.2d 30. Three years later, the father filed a petition to modify the support order, arguing, among other things, that the consumer price index provision must be stricken as contrary to RSA 458-C:3, II(a) (2004), which provides the computations used in calculating a child support award. Id. at 57, 871 A.2d 30. After examining RSA 458-C:3, II(a), we noted that the child support guidelines generally require a trial court to set prospective support based upon [the parents'] current income figures. Id. at 64, 871 A.2d 30. From this, we concluded that the use of the consumer price index as a mandatory escalator was inconsistent with the child support guidelines because it requires adjustments to the [payor]'s support obligation that are independent of actual changes in the parties' incomes. Id. at 65, 871 A.2d 30. The rationale underlying our holding in Donovan is equally applicable in this case. As noted above, in determining the amount of alimony to be awarded, the court must consider such factors as the length of the marriage; the age, health, social or economic status, occupation, amount and sources of income, the property awarded . . ., vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, and needs of each of the parties. RSA 458:19, IV(b). All of these enumerated factors pertain to the financial and personal circumstances of the actual divorcing parties. In this way, RSA 458-C:3, II(a) and RSA 458:19, IV(a) are similar. See Donovan, 152 N.H. at 64, 871 A.2d 30 (explaining how RSA 458-C:3, II(a) requires the court to analyze the parties' actual incomes in making a child support award). The consumer price index, in contrast, is intended to provide a general overview of the price of goods and services purchased by the average consumer. Black's Law Dictionary 335 (8th ed.2004). While this information may be useful in ascertaining the effect of inflation on the macroeconomic condition of a large geographic area, it does not necessarily shed light on the realities of individuals. It cannot be presumed that inflation will perforce affect the financial condition of every divorced couple. Consequently, it cannot be presumed that inflation will affect the equities of an alimony award. See Waldman v. Waldman, 520 So.2d 87, 89 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1988) (explaining that there must be a showing that the national problem of inflation impacts specifically on the individual requesting modification of an alimony award before such modification can be granted), receded from on other grounds by Acker v. Acker, 821 So.2d 1088 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2002). Because RSA 458:19, IV(b) requires alimony awards to be based upon the condition of the actual parties, and not solely the economy at large, the trial court erred by making the alimony award subject to the consumer price index. See Donovan, 152 N.H. at 64-65, 871 A.2d 30; see also Barham v. Barham, 127 N.C.App. 20, 487 S.E.2d 774, 781 (1997) (holding that an alimony recipient is not entitled to an automatic cost-of-living increase based upon the consumer price index); Stoler v. Stoler, 376 So.2d 253, 254 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1979) (finding error where a trial court inserted a provision in an alimony award providing for an automatic cost-of-living increase); cf. Tillman v. Tillman, 791 So.2d 285, 288-89 (Miss.Ct.App.2001).