In the Matter of Rebecca Stanley-Snelling and Randall Snelling

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2017-0070, In the Matter of Rebecca Stanley-
Snelling and Randall Snelling, the court on December 22, 2017,
issued the following order:

The wife’s motion to strike the husband’s brief and appendix is denied.
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, Randall Snelling (husband), appeals the final decree of
the Circuit Court (Moran, J.) in his divorce from the petitioner, Rebecca Stanley
(wife). He argues that the trial court erred in: (1) finding that he failed to
comply with mandatory disclosure requirements; (2) denying his motion for
contempt; (3) determining his income for purposes of child support, alimony,
and an equitable property division; and (4) awarding the wife alimony.

The husband first argues that the trial court erred in finding that he
failed to comply with Circuit Court – Family Division Rule 1.25-A disclosure
requirements. We review a trial court’s decision on the management of
discovery under an unsustainable exercise of discretion standard. In the
Matter of Hampers & Hampers, 154 N.H. 275, 280 (2006). To meet this
standard, the husband must demonstrate that the trial court’s ruling was
clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case. Id. Rule 1.25-A
mandates that parties to a divorce exchange copies of certain relevant
documents, including tax returns, pay stubs, and, for business owners,
financial statements. See Fam. Div. R. 1.25-A. The record shows that the
husband was not forthcoming about his business income and did not disclose
his business records. The court found that he repeatedly failed to comply with
Rule 1.25-A disclosure requirements and, in fact, the court continued the final
hearing because of the failure to make the required disclosures. Although the
husband asserts that he did not maintain business records, he acknowledges
that when the court gave him 15 days to comply with Rule 1.25-A and avoid a
final default, he obtained counsel, and “with her assistance, completed his Rule
1.25 disclosures,” which included his most recent tax return and bank
statements. Based upon this record, we cannot conclude that the trial court
unsustainably exercised its discretion in finding that the husband failed to
comply with his Rule 1.25-A disclosure requirements. See In the Matter of
Hampers, 154 N.H. at 280.

The husband next argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion
for contempt, alleging that the wife failed to comply with the court’s order to
produce updated bank records. We review the trial court’s ruling on a
contempt motion for an unsustainable exercise of discretion. In the Matter of
Conner & Conner, 156 N.H. 250, 253 (2007). The trial court found that the
wife’s noncompliance was not willful. The wife asserts that it was an “honest
oversight.” The court noted that the wife had produced her W-2 statements,
which provided “a clear indication of her income.” Moreover, the record shows
that when the court specifically ordered the wife to provide updated bank
records, she filed the updated records with the court approximately ten days
later. Based upon this record, we cannot conclude that the trial court
unsustainably exercised its discretion in denying the husband’s motion for
contempt. See id.

The husband next argues that the trial court erred in its determination of
his income for purposes of child support, alimony, and an equitable property
division. On appeal, we will affirm the findings and rulings of the trial court
unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are legally erroneous. In the
Matter of Nyhan and Nyhan, 147 N.H. 768, 770 (2002). The record shows that,
during the marriage, the husband owned and operated paving and sealcoating
businesses known as ABC Paving Company, ABC Sealcoating, and ABC
Equipment LLC. The husband testified that, after the wife filed her divorce
petition, he “sold off” the paving equipment, gave the sealcoating equipment to
one nephew, and chose to work for another nephew as an “independent
contractor,” at a greatly reduced income. He provided no documentation or
other evidence to substantiate these transactions, nor was he able to recall
specific dates as to when they occurred. Neither of the nephews testified at the
hearing. Based upon these events, the husband asserted that his income fell
sharply to $1,862 per month. The trial court did not find his testimony to be
credible. We defer to a trial court’s judgment on such issues as resolving
conflicts in 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). As fact finder, the trial court may accept or reject, in whole or in
part, the testimony of any witness or party, and is not required to believe even
uncontroverted evidence. Id. at 466.

The evidence showed that the husband continued to drive a pick-up
truck bearing the name “ABC Paving Company,” and that the company’s
telephone number remained the same as the husband’s personal telephone
number. The husband also continued to register the trade name ABC Paving
Company and to publish advertising identifying him as the owner of ABC
Paving Company. On July 1, 2015, the husband, doing business as ABC
Paving Company, was issued workers’ compensation coverage.

In the absence of credible testimony from the husband regarding his
income, the court considered evidence of his past earnings, including testimony
from the wife who, the court found, assisted in the development of ABC Paving
Company for approximately ten years between 2002 and 2012, working as a

2
secretary and performing other tasks. The wife testified that in 2013, when the
parties were still living together, the husband earned approximately $6,000 per
month. The court also considered the husband’s bank records. In 2015, the
husband made $98,293 in deposits at the Claremont Savings Bank and $4,915
in deposits at People’s United Bank, for a total of $103,208 in deposits which,
as the court noted, averages $8,600 per month. Based upon all of the available
evidence, the court found that the husband was earning between $6,000 and
$8,000 per month in 2015 and used the lower figure, $6,000, for purposes of
determining child support, alimony, and an equitable property division. We
conclude that the court’s finding is supported by the record. See In the Matter
of Nyhan and Nyhan, 147 N.H. at 770.

The husband next argues that the court erred in its alimony award. The
trial court is afforded broad discretion in awarding alimony. In the Matter of
Harvey & Harvey, 153 N.H. 425, 430 (2006), overruled on other grounds by In
the Matter of Chamberlin & Chamberlin, 155 N.H. 13, 15-16 (2007). We will
not overturn its decision on such matters unless it is lacking in evidentiary
support or tainted by error of law. In the Matter of Fowler & Fowler, 145 N.H.
516, 519 (2000). The amount of alimony awarded must be sufficient to cover
the wife’s needs, within the limits of the husband’s ability to pay. Harvey, 153
N.H. at 433; see RSA 458:19, I (Supp. 2011). The trial court found that the
wife has the need for alimony, and that the husband has the ability to pay.
The court awarded the wife alimony of $433 per month for three years, to
provide her with the opportunity to increase her earning capacity and become
self-supporting. See In the Matter of Fowler, 145 N.H. at 520 (noting that the
primary purpose of alimony is rehabilitative). The court noted that the wife is
working to complete her bachelor’s degree. The husband’s challenges to the
alimony award are based upon his assertion that his income averages $1,852
per month, an assertion that the trial court rejected. See In the Matter of
Aube, 158 N.H. at 465. Based upon this record, we cannot conclude that the
trial court’s alimony award constitutes an unsustainable exercise of discretion.
See In the Matter of Chamberlin, 155 N.H. at 15-16.

The husband also argues that the trial court used an incorrect multiplier
in determining the wife’s income, asserting that her income, properly adjusted,
is $1,885.73 per month. The trial court must have had the opportunity to
consider any issues asserted by the appellant on appeal; thus, to satisfy this
preservation requirement, any issues which could not have been presented to
the trial court prior to its decision must be presented to it in a motion for
reconsideration. Fam. Div. R. 1.26(F); see N.H. Dep’t of Corrections v. Butland, 147 N.H. 676, 679 (2002). The husband failed to present this issue to the trial
court in a motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, it is not preserved for
review.

3
 We have considered the husband’s remaining arguments, and have
concluded that they do not warrant further discussion. See Vogel v. Vogel, 137
N.H. 321, 322 (1993).

Affirmed.

Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Lynn, Bassett, and Hantz Marconi, JJ.,
concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

4