Cited by

We previously considered escalation clauses in Heinze v. Heinze, 122 N.H. 358 (1982), and In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55 (2005).

We have held that “extracurricular activity expenses fall into the same category of basic support as food, shelter and recreation, and as such are included in the parties’ total support obligation under the guidelines.” In the Matter of Donovan and Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 60 (2005).

In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 60 (2005) (extracurricular activity expenses included in guideline support).

6 extracurricular expenses.” In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 60 (2005).

In the order, the court found the college contribution provision to be “valid and enforceable.” See In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 63-64 (2005) (holding that support orders issued prior to February 2, 2004, may require parents to contribute to their children’s college education).

State v. Pessetto, 160 N.H. 813, 818 (2010) (noting that State’s speculation “is not evidence”); In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 59 (2005) (vacating trial court’s order modifying father’s monthly child support obligation because court relied upon father’s speculation, which was unsupported by any evidence, regarding mother’s employment).

In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 63 (2005).

In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 58 (2005).

In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 62-63 (2005).

Because trial courts are in the best position to determine the parties’ respective needs and their respective abilities to meet them, see In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, *521 152 N.H. 55,59 (2005), we will not disturb the trial court’s rulings regarding child support absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion or an error of law.

ine rule of law that “absent a set percentage or specific dollar amount, trial courts cannot issue new orders regarding college expenses.” II At the time the parties divorced, the trial court had “‘broad discretionary’ powers to order divorced parents to contribute to their children’s college expenses under RSA 458:17, I (Supp. 2003) and RSA 458:20 (1992).” In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 61 (2005).

When a statute is silent about whether it “should apply prospectively or retrospectively, our interpretation turns on whether the statute affects the parties’ substantive or procedural rights.” In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 63 (2005).

At that time, under New Hampshire law, “the trial court had broad discretionary powers to order divorced parents to contribute to their children’s college expenses.” In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 61 (2005) (quotation omitted).

Cf In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 58-59 (2005) (applying this standard to the question of whether a spouse was “voluntarily” underemployed).

In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 59 (2005).

In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 59 (2005).

Citing In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55 (2005), the court held that the child support order “was specifically intended to implement the [husband’s] obligation to contribute towards college expenses” and that the “continuance of child support as the [husband’s] contribution towards college involves a substantive right.” (Emphasis omitted.)

Further, and for the purposes of this appeal only, we assume without deciding that the order was a support order, cf. In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 66 (2005) (Dalianis, J., dissenting) (an “order for contribution to college expenses is a support order”).

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 (2005).

The father contends that the trial court erred by: (1) including statutory interest for the period before he was served with the mother’s motion to modify the arrearage; (2) applying In the Matter of Giacomini & Giacomini, 151 N.H. 775 (2005), retroactively; (3) enforcing the post-secondary education' expense provision in light of In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55 (2005); and (4) enforcing the post-secondary education expense provision absent evidence that the father was ab

In reviewing the modification petition, the trial court was required to recalculate the parties’ total support obligation based upon their current incomes, In the Matter of Donovan & *503 Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 60 (2005), and reassess whether existing special circumstances warranted deviation from that obligation.

In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 58 (2005).

Cf, e.g., In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 59 (2005) (vacating modification of child support where “[t]he father’s claim that the mother could obtain employment as a bookkeeper [was] speculation unsupported by any concrete evidence”).

There is a presumption of prospectivity when a statute affects substantive rights.” In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 63 (2005) (citation omitted).

In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 58 (2005).

“Whether a party is underemployed is a question for the fact finder, whose decision will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by evidence in the record.” In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 58-59 (2005).

In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 58 (2005).

In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 59 (2005).

In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 58 (2005).

In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 58 (2005).

In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 58-59 (2005).

In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55, 61-63 (2005).