Cited by

In the Matter of Arvenitis & Arvenitis, 152 N.H. 653, 654 (2005).

change of circumstances since the effective date of the alimony order, the court must interpret the divorce decree and incorporated stipulations “in light of the facts and circumstances known to the parties and the court at the time the court issued the decree, along with future facts or circumstances known or reasonably anticipated to occur in the future.” In the Matter of Arvenitis & Arvenitis, 152 N.H. 653, 655 (2005) (quotation omitted).

In the Matter of Arvenitis & Arvenitis, 152 N.H. 653, 655 (2005); Bisig v. Bisig, 124 N.H. 372, 376 (1983).

In the Matter of Arvenitis & Arvenitis, 152 N.H. 653, 657 (2005) (observing that 65 is “the normal retirement age” (quotation omitted)).

“We review an order on a motion to modify a support obligation for an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” In the Matter of Arventis & Arventis, 152 N.H. 653, 654 (2005).

In the Matter of Arvenitis & Arvenitis, 152 N.H. 653, 654 (2005); In the Matter of Birmingham & Birmingham, 154 N.H. 51, 57 (2006).

“[A] change in circumstances that is both anticipated and foreseeable at the time of the decree does not constitute a substantial change in circumstances warranting a change in alimony.” In the Matter of Arvenitis & Arvenitis, 152 N.H. 653, 656 (2005) (quotation omitted).

In the Matter of Arvenitis & Arvenitis, 152 N.H. 653, 655-57 (holding that voluntary retirement may constitute a substantial change of circumstances justifying termination of alimony provided it “was not both actually anticipated and foreseeable” at the time of divorce).

at 290, and “must take into account all of the circumstances of the parties, including the terms of the stipulation,” In the Matter of Arvenitis & Arvenitis, 152 N.H. 653, 655 (2005) (quotation omitted).

In the Matter of Arvenitis & Arvenitis, 152 N.H. 653, 655-57 (2005) (rejecting argument that voluntary retirement is necessarily reasonably anticipated and foreseeable so as not to constitute a substantial change of circumstances justifying modification of alimony); Norberg v. Norberg, 135 N.H. 620, 625 (1992) (stating that, in determining whether modification of decree

In the Matter of Arvenitis & Arvenitis, 152 N.H. 653, 654 (2005).

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 (2005), it cannot be made subject to the consumer price index, which is unrelated to the financial circumstances of the parties.

In addition, in assessing the reasonableness of McRae’s retirement, the trial court should address the unique facts of this case and consult our opinion in In the Matter of Arvenitis & Arvenitis, 152 N.H. 653, 657 (2005), which adopts the reasonableness test set out in Pimm v. Pimm, 601 So.