Cited by

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 285 (2006) (“[W]e afford trial courts broad discretion in determining matters of property distribution in fashioning a final divorce decree.”).

” thereby “disregarding any contribution wife has made to its value over the many years of their marriage.” Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that “[i]t would be patently unfair for [the husband] to be able to keep the entire value of the property to himself, based on the length of the marriage, and the extent of wife’s contributions to the home.” Cf. In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 278, 285-86 (2006) (emphasizing statutory obligation to apportion marital property equi

In the Matter of Dube & Dube, 163 N.H. 575, 579 (2012); In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 289-90 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 290 (2006) (we assume trial court made all findings necessary to support its ruling).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 283 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 280 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 285 (2006).

id.; In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 281 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 289-90 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 280 (2006).

[¶12] Although Mother’s due process arguments under the State Constitution are unpreserved due to lack of development, see In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 291 (2006) (finding that a reference to “due process” in the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration “was insufficient to preserve a claim under the State Constitution”), we find that she has preserved her arguments under the Federal Constitution.

In denying that request, the trial court not only found no applicable exception to the American Rule that each party pay his or her own legal fees, but also noted that “[i]n this case, as in Hampers, the attorney’s fees issue has been addressed in the context of the property division.” See In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 291 (2006) (noting that when the trial court permitted the wife “to retain the sums paid by the [husband] for her attorney’s fees, the court made these fees pa

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 287-88 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 285 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 280 (2006).

the admissibility of evidence under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard.” In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 280 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 283 (2006).

Gosselin v. Gosselin, 136 N.H. 350, 353-54 (1992); see also In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 290 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 285 (2006) (“A trial court is not precluded.

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 285 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 289-90 (2006) (quotations and citations omitted).

However, unlike alimony, the trial court has a statutory obligation to equitably apportion marital property, In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 286 (2006), which includes any property acquired up to the date of a decree of legal separation or divorce.

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 283 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 280 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 280 (2006); In the Matter of Conner, 156 N.H. at 252.

“This means that we review the record only to determine whether it contains an objective basis to sustain the trial court’s discretionary judgment[s].” In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 281 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 285 (2006).

RSA 461-A:6, I (Supp. 2016); In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 281 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 285 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 280 (2006) (explaining that we review a trial court's decision on the management of discovery under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 283 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 287 (2006) (“[P]arties may not have judicial review of matters not raised in the forum of trial.”).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 281 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 281 (2006).

In the Matter of Kurowski & Kurowski, 161 N.H. 578, 585 (2011) (standard of review regarding parenting rights and responsibilities); In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 280 (2006) (standard of review regarding admissibility of evidence); In the Matter of Giacomini & Giacomini, 150 N.H. 498, 500 (2004) (standard of review regarding contempt).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 287 (2006).

However, we have explained that “[t]he duration of a marriage is but one of the factors for a court to consider when equitably dividing the parties’ property,” and that it may not always be equitable “to treat 3 a short-term marriage differently from a long-term marriage.” In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 286 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 290 (2006) (we assume the trial court made all findings necessary to support its decision).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 283 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 285 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 283 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 285 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 286 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 283 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 291 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 281 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 280 (2006).

In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 283 (2006) (Hampers I).

“An award of attorney’s fees must be grounded upon statutory authorization, a court rule, an agreement between the parties, or an established exception to the rule that each party is responsible for paying his or her own counsel fees.” In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 289 (2006) (quotation omitted).

“This means that we review the record only to determine whether it contains an objective basis to sustain the trial court’s discretionary judgment[s].” In the Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 281 (2006).