In the Matter of Christine Hodorowski and Tawfic Hakim
In the Matter of Christine Hodorowski and Tawfic Hakim, No. 2015-0500 (N.H. Apr. 14, 2016).
The holding in the court’s own words
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2015-0500, In the Matter of Christine Hodorowski and Tawfic Hakim, the court on April 14, 2016, issued the following order: Having considered the parties’ briefs and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. Based upon our review of the trial court’s order, the petitioner’s challenges to it, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the petitioner 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.
- In re Crowe 148 N.H. 218
- In Re Sawyer 161 N.H. 11
- In re Letendre 149 N.H. 31
- Rabbia v. Rocha 162 N.H. 734
- Ralph P. Gallo & a. v. Susan Traina & a. 166 N.H. 737
Opinion text
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2015-0500, In the Matter of Christine
Hodorowski and Tawfic Hakim, the court on April 14, 2016,
issued the following order:
Having considered the parties’ briefs and the record submitted on appeal,
we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R.
18(1). The petitioner, Christine Hodorowski, appeals the final decree entered in
her divorce from the respondent, Tawfic Hakim. On appeal, she argues that
the Circuit Court (Tenney, J.) erred by failing to: (1) “adequately and equitably
weigh the relative credibility of the parties”; (2) “equitably apportion” their
assets given the statutory factors and “the credibility and candor of the parties
in their testimony”; and (3) “equitably assign payment of attorney’s fees.” We
affirm.
We afford trial courts broad discretion in determining matters of property
distribution when fashioning a final divorce decree. In the Matter of Crowe &
Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 221 (2002). We will not overturn the trial court’s
decision absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion. Id. Moreover, we
defer to the trial court on matters such as “resolving conflicts in the testimony,
measuring the credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given
evidence.” In the Matter of Sawyer & Sawyer, 161 N.H. 11, 18 (2010). “If the
court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will
stand.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002). We,
similarly, defer “to a trial court’s decision on attorney’s fees, and will not
overturn it absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion.” Rabbia v. Rocha, 162 N.H. 734, 740 (2011) (quotation omitted).
As the appealing party, the petitioner 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 order, the petitioner’s challenges to it, the relevant
law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has
not demonstrated reversible error. See id.
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk