In the Matter of Neeraja Reddy and Veerender Makam

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2016-0697, In the Matter of Neeraja Reddy and
Veerender Makam, the court on October 17, 2017, 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, Veerender Makam (husband), appeals the final decree of
the Circuit Court (Introcaso, J.) in his divorce from the petitioner, Neeraja
Midella Reddy (wife). He argues that the trial court erred in: (1) accepting the
wife’s revised proposed decree shortly before the final hearing; (2) awarding the
children’s tax exemptions to the wife; (3) ordering him to remove his personal
property from the marital home within 90 days; (4) awarding the wife a portion
of his retirement account and certain bank accounts to equalize the property
division; (5) omitting an alleged $7,751 India life insurance policy from the
marital estate; (6) awarding the marital residence and an adjacent rental
property to the wife; (7) awarding one of the parties’ five real estate parcels in
India to the wife; (8) allegedly including a $2,505.92 tenant security deposit
account in the marital estate; (9) accepting the parties’ stipulated values of the
Indian real estate; (10) including his $10,000 relocation bonus in the marital
estate; and (11) failing to conclude that the wife diminished the value of the
marital estate by certain bank account transfers and withdrawals.

The trial court, following a two-day hearing, granted the parties a divorce
based upon irreconcilable differences. At the outset of the hearing, the
husband moved to strike the wife’s revised proposed decree, provided to him
two days before the hearing. Upon questioning by the court, the husband
declined a continuance and his counsel identified no prejudice to the timing,
asking only for the lack of notice of the changes to be considered in the court’s
review. After considering all the testimony and other evidence, the court found
an equal division of the marital estate, with minor adjustments, to be an
equitable division. On reconsideration, the court clarified that the tenant
security deposit account was not a marital asset. At trial, the husband failed
to introduce the India life insurance policy or sufficient evidence that it existed.
The court awarded the parties joint decision-making responsibilities for the
parties’ two children and awarded primary residential responsibility for the
children to the wife.
 We afford trial courts broad discretion in determining matters of property
distribution in fashioning a final divorce decree. In the Matter of Hampers &
Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 285 (2006). We will not overturn the trial court’s
decision absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion. Id. “In a divorce
proceeding, marital property is not to be divided by some mechanical formula
but in a manner deemed ‘just’ based upon the evidence presented and the
equities of the case.” In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 35
(2002). “If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence
presented, they will stand.” Id. at 36. Under RSA 458:16-a, II (2004), an equal
division of property is presumed equitable unless the trial court decides
otherwise after considering one or more of the factors designated in the statute.
Id. at 35.

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 well-reasoned 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 Lynn, Bassett, and Hantz Marconi, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

2