Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite In Re Nassar, 943 A.2d 740.

32 citing documents.

In the Matter of Whitehead & Whitehead 2026 N.H. 13 N.H. 2026
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 778-79 (2008).
In the Matter of Danielle Desmarais and Ryan Desmarais N.H. 2025
The bill 1 I note that this statement of purpose is consistent with our case law in which we have observed that the purpose of alimony is “rehabilitative” and that its award should be “designed to encourage the recipient to establish an independent source of income.” In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 777 (2008) (quotations omitted).
In the Matter of Valerie Bois and Alan Bois N.H. 2025
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of Donald Nixon and Roxanne Nixon N.H. 2025
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 776 (2008) (“Because RSA 458:19, IV(b) requires alimony awards to be based upon the condition of the actual parties, and not solely the economy at large, the trial court erred by making the alimony award subject to the consumer price index.”).
In the Matter of Christopher Taylor and Therese Taylor N.H. 2025
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of Alan Perewitz and Suzanne Perewitz N.H. 2024
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of Marc Hebert and Kelly Hebert N.H. 2024
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of James Lagace and Katharine Lagace N.H. 2020
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of Arnold Goddard and Racheal Goddard N.H. 2020
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of Nicholas Flickner and Elizabeth Connors N.H. 2020
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of James Connor and Victoria Connor N.H. 2020
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of Denise Survilas and Steven Survilas N.H. 2020
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 780 (2008).
In the Matter of Allen McKenzie and Jodi McKenzie N.H. 2019
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of Jeremiah Comeford and Breanna Comeford N.H. 2019
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of Thomas Gelinas and Karin Gelinas N.H. 2019
An award of alimony, like that of child support, must generally be based upon current income figures, In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 776 (2008), and changes in circumstances are dealt with by later modification, see RSA 458:14 (2018) (amended 2018),:19-aa (Supp. 2018).
In the Matter of Mitchell Cohen and Marian Richards 207 A.3d 729 N.H. 2019
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772-73, 777 (2008) (the primary purpose of alimony is rehabilitative); RSA 458:19-a (Supp. 2018).
In the Matter of Steven Hoyt and Lesley Hoyt 196 A.3d 85 N.H. 2018
In the Matter of Johnson & Johnson, 158 N.H. 555, 558 (2009); In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of Christopher Lawton and Christi Lawton N.H. 2017
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of Aileen MacNaughton and Martin Robert N.H. 2016
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of Amanda Herman and Nathan Adams N.H. 2016
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of George Provencal and Laurie Provencal N.H. 2016
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of Christopher Taylor and Therese Taylor N.H. 2016
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of Shawn Pelletier and Shawna Pelletier N.H. 2016
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of Gwenn Ferdinando and Bryan Ferdinando N.H. 2016
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of Judith Desmarais and Timothy Desmarais N.H. 2016
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of Keli Eckroate-Breagy and Paul Breagy N.H. 2015
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008).
In the Matter of Robert Kempton and Peggy Kempton 167 N.H. 785 N.H. 2015
The principle that the primary purpose of alimony is rehabilitative “is based upon the realization that modern spouses are equally able to function in the job market and to provide for their own financial needs.” In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 777 (2008) (quotation omitted).
Susan Achille v. George Achille, Jr. 167 N.H. 706 N.H. 2015
RSA 458:7-a; see also In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 774 (2008) (stating that, in a no-fault divorce, fault is not considered on question of property division or alimony).
Mellin v. Northern Security Insurance 115 A.3d 799 N.H. 2015
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 780 (2008).
In the Matter of Suzanne Brule and Robert Brule N.H. 2015
Although we have recognized that the primary purpose of alimony is rehabilitative, we have also recognized that “the express language of the alimony statute dictates that alimony awards need not be rehabilitative in all cases.” In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 777 (2008); see RSA 458:19, I (providing for alimony awards that are “either temporary or permanent, for a definite or indefinite period of time”).
In the Matter of Susan Spenard and David Spenard 167 N.H. 1 N.H. 2014
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 780 (2008).
In Re Sawyer 8 A.3d 80 N.H. 2010
In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 778 (2008) (“We will not consider what the legislature might have said, or add language that the legislature did not see fit to include.” (quotation omitted)).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by