In the Matter of Allen McKenzie and Jodi McKenzie

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2019-0108, In the Matter of Allen McKenzie
and Jodi McKenzie, the court on October 15, 2019, 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 petitioner, Allen McKenzie (husband), appeals the final decree of the
Circuit Court (Lemire, J.) in his divorce from the respondent, Jodi McKenzie
(wife), raising numerous challenges to the trial court’s alimony award.

The husband first argues that the trial court erred in relying upon the
wife’s financial affidavit to determine the amount of its alimony award. The
trial court is afforded broad discretion in awarding alimony. In the Matter of
Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769, 772 (2008). We will not overturn the trial
court’s decision absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion. Id. We will
uphold its factual findings unless they are lacking in evidentiary support or
erroneous as a matter of law. Id.

The husband argues that there is no evidence to support the court’s
finding that the wife earns $1,590 gross monthly income. However, the wife
stated in her financial affidavit that she earns $1,590 per month before taxes,
and at the final hearing, she confirmed that the affidavit “shows accurately
what [she is] earning now.” The husband argues that, “[u]sing simple math,”
the wife’s testimony regarding her hourly wage and number of hours worked
per week shows that she earns more than what she stated in her financial
affidavit. However, we defer to the trial court 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). We conclude that the trial court’s finding regarding the wife’s gross
income could reasonably have been made based upon the evidence presented.
Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003).

The husband next argues that there was insufficient evidence to show
that the purpose of the trial court’s six-year alimony award is rehabilitative.
The principle that the primary purpose of alimony is rehabilitative “is based
upon the realization that modern spouses are equally able to function in the
job market and to provide for their own financial needs.” In the Matter of
Nassar, 156 N.H. at 777 (quotation omitted). “Alimony should, therefore,
generally be designed to encourage the recipient to establish an independent
source of income.” Id. The record in this case shows the parties’ relationship
began when they were in high school. The wife did not complete high school,
but she obtained her G.E.D. Her employment history has been interrupted by
periods during which she was a stay-at-home mother to the parties’ children.
She was the primary caretaker for the children during the marriage, while the
husband was the primary income earner. Based upon this record, we conclude
that the trial court’s award of alimony for six years is consistent with the
rehabilitative purpose of alimony. See id.

The husband next argues that the evidence was insufficient to show that
the wife cannot be self-supporting through appropriate employment at a
standard of living that meets her reasonable needs. The trial court may award
alimony if: (1) the party in need lacks sufficient income, property, or both to
provide for her reasonable needs, considering the style of living to which the
parties have become accustomed during the marriage; (2) the payor is able to
continue to meet his own reasonable needs, considering the style of living to
which the parties have become accustomed during the marriage; and (3) the
party in need cannot be self-supporting through appropriate employment at a
standard of living that meets reasonable needs. See In the Matter of Kempton
& Kempton, 167 N.H. 785, 801-02 (2015); RSA 458:19, I (2018) (amended
2018). The husband concedes that he has the ability to pay alimony, but
argues that the wife’s claimed expenses are inflated and inaccurate. The trial
court found that some of the parties’ claimed expenses are “unnecessarily
excessive” and inaccurate. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the wife
needs alimony to meet her reasonable needs, considering that she will need to
maintain a separate household and incur separate expenses. We conclude that
the record supports the court’s findings. See In the Matter of Nassar, 156 N.H.
at 772.

Finally, the husband argues that a monthly alimony award of $1,820,
when the basis for that figure is not stated in the order, is erroneous. In
determining the amount of alimony, a trial court must consider: the length of
the marriage; the age, health, social or economic status, occupation, amount
and sources of income, the property awarded under RSA 458:16-a, vocational
skills, employability, estate, liabilities, and needs of each of the parties; the
opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income; the
fault of either party as defined in RSA 458:16-a, II(l); and the federal tax
consequences of the order. See In the Matter of Kempton, 167 N.H. at 802;
RSA 458:19, IV(b) (2018) (amended 2018). Further, the court may consider the
economic contribution of the parties to the value of their respective estates, as
well as non-economic contributions to the family unit. See RSA 458:19, IV(d)
(2018) (amended 2018). We assume the trial court made all findings necessary
to support its decision, even if it did not do so expressly. See In the Matter of
Costa & Costa, 156 N.H. 323, 331 (2007). Accordingly, we assume that the
trial court considered all the factors enumerated in RSA 458:19, IV, and that

2
its findings support the amount of alimony awarded. See id. We conclude that
the record supports the trial court’s assumed findings. See Nassar, 156 N.H.
at 772. The parties were married for thirteen years. Given the length of the
parties’ marriage, the wife’s education and skills, the husband’s gross income
of $9,548 per month, and the wife’s gross income of $1,590 per month, we
cannot say that a monthly alimony award of $1,820 for six years is
unreasonable as a matter of law. See id.

Affirmed.

Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox,
Clerk

3