Cited by

In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 34 (2002).

ve basis sufficient to support a finding that justice requires a ten-year adjustment over and above the length of the maximum guideline alimony award.2 Cf. Henry v. Henry, 129 N.H. 159, 162-63 (1987) (finding that spouse suffering from progressive debilitating illness with “little hope for an independent lifestyle” justified request for extension of alimony); In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 39-40 (2002) (finding age of wife, lack of high school degree, disability, length of ma

In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 34 (2002).

Holliday v. Holliday, 139 N.H. 213, 215-17 (1994) (concluding trial court’s award of husband’s lottery winnings to the husband was a sustainable exercise of discretion); In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 33, 36, 37 (2002) (affirming the trial court’s award of the proceeds of a verdict in the wife’s gender discrimination lawsuit entirely to the wife).

“In a divorce proceeding, marital property is not to be divided by some mechanical formula but in a manner deemed ‘just’ based upon the evidence presented and the equities of the case.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 35 (2002).

The trial court found that the husband paid the wife “a significant amount of support since moving out of the home,” which “allowed the parties to keep the home.” “In a divorce proceeding, marital property is not to be divided by some mechanical formula but in a manner deemed ‘just’ based upon the evidence presented and the equities of the case.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 35 (2002).

The trial court adopted Wife’s request for a ruling of law, citing our decision in In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31 (2002), that the proceeds from the lawsuits are not considered marital property.

“If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

“If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

“If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

“If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

“If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

See, e.g., In the Matter of Cottrell & El-Sherif, 163 N.H. 747, 749 (2012) (valuation of a marital asset is a question of fact within the trial court’s discretion); In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 34 (2002) (matters of property distribution and alimony are within the trial court’s discretion); In the Matter of Kamil & Kamil, 173 N.H. 424, 437 (2020) (reviewing trial court’s decision on admissibility of evidence under unsustainable exercise of discretion standard); Magrauth v.

“If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

“If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 34 (2002); In 2 the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 518-19 (2013).

In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 35 (2002).

In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 34 (2002) (“We sustain the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidential support or tainted by error of law.”).

“If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002) (“If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.”).

In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 34 (2002).

“If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

“If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

“In a divorce proceeding, marital property is not to be divided by some mechanical formula but in a manner deemed ‘just’ based upon the evidence presented and the equities of the case.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 35 (2002).

“If the court's findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 35 (2002).

In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 35 (2002).

“In a divorce proceeding, marital property is not to be divided by some mechanical formula but in a manner deemed ‘just’ based upon the evidence presented and the equities of the case.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 35 (2002).

“If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

“If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

“If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

“If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

“If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

Baker Valley Lumber v. Ingersoll-Rand, 148 N.H. 609, 617-18 (2002) (trial court properly disallowed portion of expert testimony where identity of expert and his opinion were disclosed, but expert’s opinion on a particular subject was withheld); In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 37-38 (2002) (trial court properly excluded expert testimony where identity of expert was disclosed but opinion was not).

We will not overturn the trial court’s rulings regarding property settlement absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion, In the Matter of Ramadan & Ramadan, 153 N.H. 226, 232 (2006), or an error of law, In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 34 (2002).

In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 34 (2002).

unless they are lacking in evidential support or tainted by error of law.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 34 (2002).

ted spouse suffers from ill health and is not capable of establishing her own source of income, see Henry v. Henry, 129 N.H. 159, 162 (1987); (2) the supported spouse, in a fault-based divorce, has minimal job experience, no formal education, a learning disability and suffers from anxiety and panic attacks caused by the other spouse’s emotional abuse, see In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 39-40 (2002); and (3) the court determines that it is necessary for the supported spous

We will not overturn a trial court’s decision on these matters absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion, id., or an error of law, In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 34 (2002).

We address the testimonies of each witness in turn, applying the correct standard of review: the trial court retains the discretion to admit expert testimony, In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 37 (2002), and its decision will be reviewed under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard, McLaughlin v. Fisher Engineering, 150 N.H. 195, 197 (2003).

“In a divorce proceeding, marital property is not to be divided by some mechanical formula but in a manner deemed ‘just’ based upon the evidence presented and the equities of the case.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 35 (2002).

In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

The petitioner relies primarily upon In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31 (2002), to argue for a lifetime alimony award.

Because the trial court retains discretion to admit expert testimony, In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 37 (2002), we review its decision in order to determine whether it unsustainably exercised its discretion, see State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 37 (2002).

In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 34 (2002).

In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 38 (2002).