In the Matter of Tina Robinton and Stephen Robinton

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2016-0052, In the Matter of Tina Robinton and
Stephen Robinton, the court on August 22, 2016, issued the
following order:

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

The respondent, Stephen Robinton (husband), appeals a final order of the
Circuit Court (Leonard, J.) in his divorce from the petitioner, Tina Jordan, f/k/a
Tina Robinton (wife), dividing certain credit card debt equally between the parties
and ordering him to pay his share of the property distribution within 60 days.
We construe his brief to argue that: (1) he had no access to, knowledge of, or
control over the credit cards at issue; (2) the wife entered the marriage with
significant credit card debt; (3) the wife’s employer reimbursed her for some
charges to the credit cards; (4) the wife failed to apply certain tax refunds to the
credit card debt; (5) certain improvements that he made to the wife’s house
should be set-off against the credit card debt; (6) he “does not have a good level of
reading[,] writing and comprehension skills”; (7) “[t]he Judge [was] not able to
hear clearly”; and (8) he is incapable of paying the property award in the time
allotted.

RSA 458:16–a, II (2004) creates a presumption that equal distribution of
marital property, including debt, is equitable. See Maldini v. Maldini, 168 N.H.
191, 195 (2015) (stating marital property includes marital debt). The trial judge
is in the best position to evaluate the evidence, measure its persuasiveness, and
assess the credibility of witnesses. In the Matter of Salesky & Salesky, 157 N.H.
698, 708 (2008). Thus, it is not our role to reweigh the equities in the case and
divide the property accordingly. In the Matter of Heinrich & Heinrich, 164 N.H.
357, 365 (2012). Rather, our limited role is to determine whether the trial court’s
decision was a sustainable exercise of discretion. In the Matter of Henry &
Henry, 163 N.H. 175, 183 (2012). If the trial court’s findings can reasonably be
made on the evidence presented, they will stand. Id.

As the appealing party, the husband 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 husband’s challenges to it, the relevant law,
and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the husband has not
demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2