In the Matter of William Collins and Lisa Collins

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2018-0090, In the Matter of William Collins and
Lisa Collins, the court on January 31, 2019, issued the following
order:

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

The petitioner, William Collins, appeals a final decree issued by the
Circuit Court (Cross, R., approved by Alfano, J.) in his divorce from the
respondent, Lisa Collins. He challenges the award to the respondent of
alimony, see RSA 458:19 (2018) (amended 2018), arguing that, other than for
the final two years of the parties’ thirty-year marriage, there was “little to no
evidence” of their financial circumstances during the marriage. Thus, he
argues that the trial court necessarily failed properly to account for the “style of
living to which the parties ha[d] become accustomed during the marriage,” RSA
458:19, I(a) & (b), in determining the respondent’s need for alimony and the
petitioner’s ability to pay it, and that its findings concerning need and ability to
pay alimony, including its findings concerning the parties’ respective life styles,
are necessarily unsupported by the evidence. He further argues that, because
the respondent did not request financial support from him after the parties
separated in 2000, and because she did not seek alimony within the context of
a 2001 Massachusetts court petition for child support, she is now barred from
seeking alimony under RSA 458:19 within the context of this divorce petition
under the doctrine of laches. Finally, he argues that the trial court erred by
ordering him to reimburse the respondent $1,031 for certain dental and vision
care costs she incurred that were not covered by insurance.

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 decree, 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.

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

Eileen Fox,
Clerk