Cited by

[¶5] Because the jurisdiction of the family division is conferred entirely by statute, “we look to the relevant statutes to determine whether the family division ha[s] subject matter jurisdiction.” In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 517 (2013).

“Because trial courts are in the best position to determine the parties’ respective needs and their respective abilities to meet them, we will not disturb the trial court’s rulings regarding child support absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion or an error of law.” In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 520-21 (2013) (citation omitted).

RSA 458:16-a, I; see also In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 518 (2013).

“Because the powers and jurisdiction of the family division are limited to those conferred by statute, we look to the relevant statutes to determine whether the family division had subject matter jurisdiction.” In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 517 (2013) (citation omitted).

Id.; In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 518 (2013).

orders of support.” In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 518 (2013).

property in the [marital] estate that is owned by one or both parties,” not property “with third party ownership.” Thus, the court concluded that the property “is beyond the jurisdiction of this court” and that “granting [the wife] a portion of the property is not authorized in this type of case.” In reaching its decision, the court relied, in part, upon In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512 (2013).

“The ultimate determination as to whether the trial court has jurisdiction in this case is a question of law subject to de novo review.” In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 517 (2013) (quotation omitted).

In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 518-19 (2013) (holding that the family division has no jurisdiction “to disregard or invalidate a third party’s claim of interest in marital property”).

Id.; In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 518 (2013).

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).

Because guardianships are statutory, “the court has only such power in that field as is granted by statute.” In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 519 (2013).

In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 518-19 (2013).

In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 518 (2013) (noting that “the need to render equitable orders is inherent in the resolution of divorce matters”).

Id.; In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 518 (2013).

See, e.g., In re Estate of O’Dwyer, 135 N.H. 323, 324 (1992) (superseded by statute as stated in In re Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 519 (2013)); Hayes v. Hayes, 48 N.H. 219, 229 (1868); see also Cigna, 146 N.H. at 689-90.

In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 517 (2013).

Because “the need to render equitable orders is inherent in the resolution of divorce matters,” In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 518 (2013), the legislature has afforded the family division the powers of a court of equity in exercising this jurisdiction, see RSA 490-D:3 (2010).

To the extent that he argues that the Florida court and the trial court lacked “jurisdiction to disregard or invalidate a third party’s claim of interest in marital property,” In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 519 (2013), neither court’s order altered the interest of any third party.

Its discretion necessarily encompasses decisions concerning the distribution of marital property, see id., and the allocation of marital debt, see In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 518 (2013); Bourdon v. Bourdon, 119 N.H. 518, 520 (1979).

In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 514-15 (2013) (husband’s debt to his parents evidenced by note and mortgage).

In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 521 (2013) (stating, for purposes of child support, whether party is voluntarily unemployed is question for the fact finder, whose decision will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by evidence in the record).

In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 517 (2013).

“A court lacks power to hear or determine a case concerning subject matters over which it has no jurisdiction.” In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 516-17 (2013) (quotation omitted).

“A court lacks power to hear or determine a case concerning subject matters over which it has no jurisdiction.” In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 516-17 (2013) (quotation omitted).

In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 518-19 (2013).

The respondent, William Muller, appeals an order of the Circuit Court (Sadler, J.) finding that, following our opinion in In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512 (2013) (Muller I), his child support obligation “reverted to the level from the final Order: $257 per week effective August 2011,” and directing the New Hampshire Division of Child Support Services to calculate his child support arrearage based upon that amount “from the effective date of the final Order in August 201

Whether a party is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed is a question of fact for the fact finder, whose decision we will not disturb if it is supported by the evidence.

“Because trial courts are in the best position to determine the parties’ respective needs and their respective abilities to meet them, we will not disturb the trial court’s rulings regarding child support absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion or an error of law.” In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 520-21 (2013) (citation omitted).

Compare In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 521-22 (2013) (upholding finding of voluntary unemployment in divorce case where circumstances of parent’s job loss were suspect and he had well-documented history of using failure to pay child support as weapon against other parent).