In the Matter of Mayte Jimenez and Luis Jimenez
In the Matter of Mayte Jimenez and Luis Jimenez, No. 2015-0230 (N.H. Dec. 2, 2015).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2015-0230, In the Matter of Mayte Jimenez and Luis Jimenez, the court on December 2, 2015, issued the following order: Having considered the brief, memoranda of law, and record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned decree, the wife’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the wife has not demonstrated reversible error.
Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Ralph P. Gallo & a. v. Susan Traina & a. 166 N.H. 737
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2015-0230, In the Matter of Mayte Jimenez and
Luis Jimenez, the court on December 2, 2015, issued the
following order:
Having considered the brief, memoranda of law, and record submitted on
appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup.
Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.
The petitioner, Mayte Jimenez (wife), appeals a final decree of the Circuit
Court (Albee, J.) in her divorce from the respondent, Luis Jimenez (husband),
raising numerous challenges to the court’s decree. The court granted the
parties a divorce based upon irreconcilable differences and divided the marital
estate equally or approximately equally. The court awarded the husband sole
decision-making responsibility and primary residential responsibility for the
parties’ minor son. The court awarded the wife alimony in the amount of
$1,500 per month for 72 months.
As the appealing party, the wife has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the trial court’s well-reasoned decree, the wife’s challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the wife
has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk