In the Matter of Kara Golden and Michael Golden

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2015-0472, In the Matter of Kara Golden and
Michael Golden, the court on July 12, 2016, issued the following
order:

Having considered the briefs and record submitted on appeal, we
conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1).
We affirm.

The respondent, Michael Golden, appeals, and the petitioner, Kara
(Golden) Campobasso, cross-appeals, a final decree issued by the Circuit Court
(DalPra, M., approved by Introcaso, J.) in their divorce. The respondent
challenges the distribution of property, arguing that the trial court erred as a
matter of law and unsustainably exercised its discretion by not awarding him
any interest in the petitioner’s retirement account. Specifically, he argues that:
(1) although the trial court expressly awarded the asset to the petitioner in its
decree, the court did not treat it as “marital property” subject to division
pursuant to RSA 458:16-a (2004); (2) awarding the asset in its entirety to the
petitioner resulted in a property award that was unreasonably disproportionate
and inequitable; and (3) the trial court’s findings violated the statutory
presumption that an equal property division is equitable, were inconsistent
with the statutory factors authorizing an unequal division of property, and
failed to satisfy the requirement of RSA 458:16-a, IV that the court “specify
written reasons for” an unequal division of marital property. In her cross-
appeal, the petitioner challenges the award of alimony to the respondent,
arguing that the respondent does not need rehabilitative alimony, and that she
lacks the ability to pay the amount of alimony awarded.

The trial court has broad discretion in fashioning a final decree of
divorce. In the Matter of Spenard & Spenard, 167 N.H. 1, 3 (2014). Its
discretion necessarily encompasses decisions concerning the distribution of
marital property and the award of alimony. See id. We will not overturn the
trial court’s rulings on such matters absent an unsustainable exercise of
discretion. Id. “This means that we review the record only to determine
whether it contains an objective basis to sustain the trial court’s discretionary
judgments.” Id. (quotation and brackets omitted). “[W]e defer to the trial
court’s judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the testimony,
measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given
evidence.” In the Matter of Aube & Aube, 158 N.H. 459, 465 (2009). If the trial
court’s findings could reasonably have been made upon the evidence
presented, they will stand. Spenard, 167 N.H. at 3.
 Each party has the burden of demonstrating reversible error as to those
issues that the party is raising on appeal or cross-appeal. Gallo v. Traina, 166
N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our review of the trial court’s well-reasoned
order, the parties’ respective challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record
submitted on appeal, we conclude that neither party has demonstrated
reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2