In the Matter of Kelly Kingsbury Roskilly and Ryan Roskilly

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2019-0326, In the Matter of Kelly Kingsbury
Roskilly and Ryan Roskilly, the court on April 2, 2020, 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, Kelly Kingsbury Roskilly (wife), appeals the final decree of
the Circuit Court (Greenhalgh, J.), following a hearing, in her divorce from the
respondent, Ryan Roskilly (husband). The wife argues that the trial court erred
in: (1) finding that the husband had no child support arrearage; (2) valuing the
husband’s businesses; (3) reducing her property award on reconsideration; and
(4) determining the husband’s income for purposes of child support and
alimony.

The wife first argues that the trial court erred in finding that the
husband had no child support arrearage. On appeal, we will affirm the trial
court’s findings unless they are unsupported by the evidence. In the Matter of
Nyhan and Nyhan, 147 N.H. 768, 770 (2002). Although the trial court did not
award the wife temporary alimony, and although a non-hypothecation order
was in effect, the court found that the wife spent approximately $68,000 from
the parties’ joint accounts to support herself and the children during the
parties’ separation, including the six-month period in 2018 in which she claims
$18,378 in child support arrearages accrued. The wife did not challenge this
finding in her motion for reconsideration; nor does she challenge it on appeal.
The husband, on the other hand, spent only $36,250 from the same accounts.
He submitted evidence that he paid an additional $3,720.53 in direct expenses
for the wife and children during the same six-month period. Based upon this
evidence, the trial court found that the husband had no child support
arrearage. We conclude that the record supports the court’s finding. See id.

The wife next argues that the trial court erred in valuing the husband’s
businesses. In a divorce proceeding, the valuation of a business asset is a
question of fact to be determined by the trial court. In the Matter of Cottrell &
El-Sherif, 163 N.H. 747, 749 (2012). We will not disturb the trial court’s
finding unless it is unsupported by the evidence. Id.; see also In the Matter of
Chamberlin & Chamberlin, 155 N.H. 13, 16 (2007) (“[D]etermining the value of
any given asset is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.”). The husband
presented an expert; his accountant and business advisor opined as to the
value of the businesses. The husband’s business partner also testified. The
wife presented no business valuation expert or other witness to testify on this
issue. Ultimately, although the court observed that the expert was biased in
the husband’s favor, it found that the value of the husband’s share of the
businesses was $79,000, approximately the same value provided by the expert.
We conclude that the record supports the court’s finding. See In the Matter of
Cottrell, 163 N.H. at 749.

The wife next argues that the trial court erred by reducing her property
award on reconsideration by $22,168 to equalize the property distribution.
“RSA 458:16-a, II creates a presumption that equal distribution of marital
property is equitable. Absent special circumstances, the court must make the
distribution as equal as possible.” In the Matter of Henry & Henry, 163 N.H.
175, 183 (2012) (quotations, citations, and brackets omitted). Marital debt is a
factor to be considered in the equitable division of the marital estate. In the
Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512, 518-19 (2013). After a hearing on the
parties’ respective motions for reconsideration, and after reconsidering the
amount of the debts allocated to each party, the court concluded that the final
decree assigned $78,200 in debts to the husband, which resulted in an
unequal property division, contrary to the court’s objective. To equalize the
division, the court reduced the wife’s property award by $22,168. We conclude
that the record supports the court’s decision. See In the Matter of Henry, 163
N.H. at 183.

Finally, the wife argues that the trial court’s child support and alimony
awards were based upon erroneous income reports from the husband.
Determining a party’s income is a factual issue for the trial court. In the
Matter of Crowe & Crowe, 148 N.H. 218, 222-23 (2002). The court found that
both parties accurately reported their incomes. The wife argues that although
the husband’s business recently lost a major client, the loss of a client does not
necessarily mean a loss of income. The trial court found, however, that “[a]s
the client gradually ended contracts with [the husband’s] businesses, his
income declined over time,” and that “[a]ll revenue from this client ceased at
the end of August, 2018.” The trial court’s finding is supported by the record.
Accordingly, we find no error in its child support and alimony determinations.
See id.

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2