Cited by

.” In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 222 (2002).

In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 223 (2002).

“The statute enumerates various factors for the court to consider, such as the length of the marriage, the ability of the parties to provide for their own needs, the needs of the custodial parent, the contribution of each party during the marriage and the value of property contributed by each party.” In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002); see RSA 458:16-a, II.

In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 222-23 (2002).

In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 222 (2002); see also RSA 458-C:3, II (2018).

In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002).

Furthermore, although the respondent argues that the court should have given more weight to certain factors than others, “[u]nder the statute, the court need not consider all factors or give them equal weight.” In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002).

In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002).

In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002).

In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002).

In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 222 (2002); see RSA 458-C:3, II (Supp. 2015).

“We afford trial courts broad discretion in determining matters of property distribution, alimony and child support in fashioning a final divorce decree.” In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002).

In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002).

In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002).

RSA 458:19, IV(b) (Supp. 2014) (in determining amount of alimony, trial court shall consider the liabilities of the parties); cf. In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 226 (2002) (upholding alimony in a case in which the trial court, “[a]fter subtracting the amount of deduction to which the [obligor] was entitled for federal income tax and F.I.C.A.

In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002).

She contends that, unless the most recent figures are misleading, as they were in Feddersen, 149 N.H. 194 (2003), and In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218 (2002), the most current figures available should provide the basis for the court’s determination of “present income.” Here, she argues, the husband’s 2009 income was abnormally low, compared to the years before and after, and therefore the trial court unsustainably exercised its discretion when it based the husband’s

We will not overturn the trial court’s decision absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002) (citation omitted).

In making its determination, the court is required by statute to consider various factors, including “the length of the marriage, the ability of the parties to provide for their own needs, the needs of the custodial parent, the contribution of each party during the marriage and the value of property contributed by each party.” In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002); see RSA 458:16-a, II.

“The statute enumerates various factors for the court to consider, such as the length of the marriage, the ability of the parties to provide for their own needs, the needs of the custodial parent, the contribution of each party during the marriage and the value of property contributed by each party.” In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002); see RSA 458:16-a, II (2004).

“The statute enumerates various factors for the court to consider, such as the length of the marriage, the ability of the parties to provide for their own needs, the needs of the custodial parent, the contribution of each party during the marriage and the value of property contributed by each party.” In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002); see RSA 458:16~a, II.

“The statute enumerates various factors for the court to consider, such as the length of the marriage, the ability of the parties to provide for their own needs, the needs of the custodial parent, the contribution of each party during the marriage and the value of property contributed by each party.” In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002); see RSA 458:16-a, II (2004).

“Under the statute, the court need not consider all factors or give them equal weight.” In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002).

While a party’s credibility and forthrightness are factors for a trial court to consider when accepting evidence of net income, see In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 223 (2002), a finding that McRae was not credible or forthright would not have given the trial court the authority to categorize as gross income an item not otherwise includable under the statute.

“The statute enumerates various factors for the court to consider, such as the length of the marriage, the ability of the parties to provide for their own needs, the needs of the custodial parent, the contribution of each party during the marriage and the value of property contributed by each party.” In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, *431 221 (2002); see RSA 458:16-a, II (2004).

“The statute enumerates various factors for the court to consider, such as the length of the marriage, the ability of the parties to provide for their own needs, the needs of the custodial parent, the contribution of each party during the marriage and the value of property contributed by each party.” In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218,221 (2002); see RSA 458:16-a, II (2004).

In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 224 (2002).

In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 224 (2002).

We will not overturn the trial court’s decision absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002) (citation omitted).

In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002).

In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 224 (2002).

To calculate child support, the trial court must first determine each parent’s “present income.” In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 222 (2002).

In In the Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218 (2002), we held that a party’s failure to request that the trial court deduct alimony from gross income prior to calculating child support did not waive the issue on appeal.