In the Matter of Michael Babineau and Jill Babineau

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2019-0516, In the Matter of Michael Babineau
and Jill Babineau, the court on February 26, 2021, 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).
The petitioner, Michael Babineau, appeals a final decree entered by the Circuit
Court (Cooper, M., approved by McIntyre, J.), following a two-day final hearing,
in his divorce from the respondent, Jill Babineau. On appeal, the petitioner
challenges the trial court’s findings and rulings regarding property division,
alimony, and child support, arguing that the trial court erred by: (1) allocating
property and debt unequally; (2) classifying the petitioner as the “obligor” for
purposes of child support; (3) awarding alimony in the amount and duration
that it ordered; (4) not finding that certain “side work” that the petitioner
performed from 2006 or 2007 until 2018 violated a covenant not to compete in
his employment contract, and allegedly relying upon the side work in imputing
income to him; (5) ruling that the petitioner’s alimony obligation would, after a
period of time, increase without expressly finding that the respondent’s need
for alimony would increase; (6) calculating the petitioner’s income for purposes
of child support and alimony; (7) ruling that a social security dependency
benefit deriving from the respondent’s disability would be added to her income
for purposes of calculating child support, and that the petitioner would not be
entitled to a credit in his child support payments for that benefit; and (8)
considering the petitioner’s voluntary underemployment both in determining
that he had a greater ability to acquire future capital assets and income for
purposes of dividing the marital property, and in calculating his income for
purposes of child support and alimony. We note that the latter two arguments
are raised under the plain error rule. See Sup. Ct. R. 16-A. We affirm.

The trial court has broad discretion in fashioning a final divorce decree.
In the Matter Spenard & Spenard, 167 N.H. 1, 3 (2014). Its discretion
encompasses decisions concerning alimony, child support, and the division of
marital property and debt. Id.; In the Matter of Muller & Muller, 164 N.H. 512,
518 (2013). Its discretion likewise includes assigning weight to evidence and
evaluating the credibility of witnesses. In the Matter of Summers & Summers,
172 N.H. 474, 479 (2019).

We will not overturn the trial court’s rulings absent an unsustainable
exercise of discretion. Spenard, 167 N.H. at 3. Accordingly, our review is
limited to whether there is an objective basis sufficient to sustain the trial
court’s discretionary judgments. Id. Conflicts in testimony, questions about
the credibility of witnesses, and the weight assigned to testimony are matters
for the trial court to resolve. Summers, 172 N.H. at 479. The trial court’s
factual findings are binding upon us if they are supported by the evidence and
are not legally erroneous. Id. If the trial court’s findings could reasonably have
been made on the evidence before it, they will stand. Spenard, 167 N.H. at 3.

As the appealing part, 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 order, including both its narrative decree and the
parties’ requested findings of fact and rulings of law that it granted, the
petitioner’s challenges to trial court’s order, the relevant law, and the record
submitted on appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated
reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2