In the Matter of Kelly Goodwin and Adam Goodwin

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2021-0113, In the Matter of Kelly Goodwin
and Adam Goodwin, the court on January 4, 2023, issued the
following order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted
on appeal, has considered the oral arguments of the parties, and has
determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See Sup. Ct. R. 20(2).
The respondent, Adam Goodwin, appeals the final decree entered by the Circuit
Court (Cross, R., approved by Weaver, J.) in his divorce from the petitioner,
Kelly Goodwin. We affirm.

The trial court has broad discretion in fashioning a final divorce decree.
In the Matter of Spenard & Spenard, 167 N.H. 1, 3 (2014). We will not
overturn the trial court’s rulings absent an unsustainable exercise of
discretion. Id. To establish an unsustainable exercise of discretion, the
respondent, as the appealing party, must demonstrate that the trial court’s
decision was clearly untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of his case. In
the Matter of Peirano & Larsen, 155 N.H. 738, 750 (2007). We “determine only
whether there is an objective basis sufficient to sustain the discretionary
judgment made.” In the Matter of Kempton & Kempton, 167 N.H. 785, 803
(2015) (quotation omitted). “Our standard of review is not whether we would
rule differently than the trial court, but whether a reasonable person could
have reached the same decision as the trial court based upon the same
evidence.” Id. at 799.

We will not disturb the trial court’s factual findings unless they are
unsupported by the evidence or legally erroneous. See In the Matter of Nyhan
and Nyhan, 147 N.H. 768, 770 (2002). Moreover, “we defer to the trial court’s
judgment on such issues as resolving conflicts in the testimony, measuring the
credibility of witnesses, and determining the weight to be given evidence.”
Cook v. Sullivan, 149 N.H. 774, 780 (2003). “If the court’s findings can
reasonably be made on the evidence presented, they will stand.” In the Matter
of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 36 (2002).

As the appealing party, the respondent has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Peirano & Larsen, 155 N.H. at 750. Based upon our review of
the trial court’s thorough and well-reasoned order, the written and oral
arguments of the parties, the relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal,
we conclude that the respondent has not demonstrated reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm. See Sup. Ct. R. 25(8).

Affirmed.

MACDONALD, C.J., and HICKS, BASSETT, HANTZ MARCONI, and
DONOVAN, JJ., concurred.

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2