Robert L. Benjamin v. Vatche Manoukian & a.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0261, Robert L. Benjamin v. Vatche
Manoukian & a., the court on March 3, 2016, issued the
following order:

Having considered the briefs, memorandum 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.

Defendants Vatche Manoukian and Linda Haytayan appeal the order of
the Superior Court (McGuire, J.) requiring them to pay the plaintiff, Robert
Benjamin, $1,500 per month toward a judgment in excess of $536,000. See
RSA 524:6-a (Supp. 2015) (Periodic Payment of Judgments). We construe their
brief to argue that the evidence was insufficient to show that they have the
ability to pay the amount ordered.

We review a trial court’s periodic payment order under our unsustainable
exercise of discretion standard. American Express Travel v. Moskoff, 148 N.H.
446, 450 (2002). Under this standard, the defendants must demonstrate that
the court’s ruling was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of
their case. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001). We will affirm the trial
court’s factual findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence and its
legal rulings unless they are erroneous as a matter of law. Kessler v. Gleich, 156 N.H. 488, 491 (2007). The trial court, as finder of fact, may accept or
reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness or party, and is not
required to believe even uncontested evidence. In the Matter of Aube & Aube,
158 N.H. 459, 466 (2009). We defer to the trial court’s judgment on such
issues as resolving conflicts in testimony, measuring the credibility of
witnesses, and determining the weight to be given to evidence. Id.

The defendants argue that the evidence was insufficient to show that
they have the ability to pay the plaintiff $1,500 per month. Manoukian asserts
that he has no income other than the $1,100 per month that he receives in
social security. Haytayan asserts that she has earned no income in her
current position as a real estate agent. The defendants admit that until several
years ago, they owned approximately 53 limited liability companies which held
their real estate. Manoukian’s children now own four of those properties, and
the remaining properties have been lost in foreclosure.
 The record shows that the defendants have been involved in two real
estate ownership and management companies: Mile High Real Estate, LLC,
and Mile High Real Estate Management, LLC. Manoukian is the manager of
Mile High Real Estate, LLC, but he claims he receives no income from the
business. Mile High Real Estate, LLC, is currently owned by Manoukian’s
brother and a trust. Mile High Real Estate Management, LLC, is currently
owned and operated by Manoukian’s daughter.

The trial court found that Manoukian’s testimony – that he has no
income other than the $1,100 per month that he receives in social security –
was not credible. Based upon the evidence, the court found it “obvious” that
Manoukian is “still very much involved with Mile High Real Estate Management
and/or Mile High [R]eal Estate, although he claims no income.” Manoukian
insists that he merely “assists his children on running the business when they
need help.” The trial court was not required to accept his testimony. See
Aube, 158 N.H. at 466. After considering the evidence, the court concluded
that “there has been an untrustworthy entanglement among family members in
Mile High Real Estate commercial activities.” The record supports the court’s
conclusion. See Kessler, 156 N.H. at 491.

Moreover, the court found that the defendants “have not been forthright
in providing discovery or testimony about their finances.” Defendants in
periodic payment proceedings “cannot be evasive and uncooperative in
providing information to the court, and then complain that the order for
payment was unreasonable.” American Express Travel, 148 N.H. at 451. We
conclude that the evidence supports the court’s finding that the defendants
have the ability to pay the plaintiff $1,500 per month. See Kessler, 156 N.H. at
491.

We find no merit in the defendants’ assertion that the trial judge was
biased against them. The trial court’s determination that their testimony was
not credible does not, by itself, support a claim of bias. See In the Matter of
Tapply & Zukatis, 162 N.H. 285, 299-300 (2011).

We have considered the defendants’ remaining arguments, and have
concluded that they do not warrant further discussion. See Vogel v. Vogel, 137
N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

Affirmed.

Hicks, Conboy, and Lynn, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2