In the Matter of Matthew Kamil and Robin Kamil

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2021-0276, In the Matter of Matthew Kamil and
Robin Kamil, the court on April 25, 2022, 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 respondent, Robin Kamil (wife), appeals an order of the Circuit Court
(Lemire, J.), on remand from our opinion in In the Matter of Kamil & Kamil,
173 N.H. 424 (2020), dividing marital property in accordance with the parties’
prenuptial agreement, and in so doing, awarding the marital home to the
petitioner, Matthew Kamil (husband). On appeal, the wife argues that the
agreement compelled the trial court to order the sale of the home, with any
proceeds from the sale exceeding the husband’s initial investment in the
property divided equally between the parties. We affirm.

In Kamil, on appeal from the parties’ final divorce decree, we reversed the
trial court’s determination that the prenuptial agreement was unenforceable,
vacated its property division, and remanded for a new property division in
accordance with the agreement. See id. at 436. The terms of the prenuptial
agreement generally entitle each party to maintain “Separate Property,” defined
as property acquired in the party’s own name alone or jointly with someone
other than the other party, whether acquired prior to or during the marriage.
To the extent separate property becomes “commingled,” the agreement provides
that “each party shall be entitled to a credit for that portion of their initial
investment and/or deposit of Separate Property, if any, and any increase
and/or decrease in value of such property shall then be shared equally
between the parties.” With respect to “Marital Property,” defined as property
acquired by the parties jointly during the marriage, the agreement provides
that, following a “Separation Event,” including the filing for divorce by either
party, such property “shall be distributed and/or sold as soon thereafter as
practicable and the net proceeds derived therefrom, after subtracting all
applicable taxes and/or penalties and/or separate property credits, shall be
equally divided between the parties.”

The parties acquired the marital home in 2010 for $1.3 million, with the
husband providing cash solely from his separate property for its purchase
price. The husband filed for divorce in February 2015, and within the course
of the underlying divorce litigation, submitted an appraisal valuing the
property, as of April 2016, at $1.3 million. In dividing the marital property as
part of the final decree that was the subject of the appeal in Kamil, the trial
court valued the marital home as of the February 2015 divorce filing, see id. at
428, and relying upon the April 2016 appraisal, assigned it a value of $1.3
million. On remand, the husband again submitted the 2016 appraisal, and
requested that the trial court distribute the property to him in accordance with
the prenuptial agreement’s provision governing the distribution of “Marital
Property.” Although the wife contended that the property should be valued
according to its current valuation, she did not submit any evidence as to its
current value other than a document downloaded from an internet source,
which the trial court found not to be reliable evidence of the property’s value.
Cf. In the Matter of Rokowski & Rokowski, 168 N.H. 57, 61 (2015) (determining
that the trial court erred by taking judicial notice of the same internet source
as to the value of the marital home). She argued, however, that under the
express language of the prenuptial agreement, the trial court was required to
sell the home, thereby determining its current value, and distribute the
proceeds equally after crediting the husband with $1.3 million.

The trial court rejected the wife’s argument, reasoning that the express
language of the agreement allows the property to be “distributed and/or sold.”
(Emphasis added.) The trial court observed, correctly, that neither party had
challenged “the exercise of the trial court’s discretion in setting” a valuation
date of February 2015 for the marital home in the prior appeal, and that
nothing in our opinion in Kamil had disturbed “the equitable considerations of
the trial court in arriving at the February 2015 valuation date.” Because the
husband had funded the property’s purchase, in its entirety, with his separate
property, because the husband continued to reside in the property with the
parties’ children, because the property was “the only home [the children had]
ever known,” and because the only reliable evidence as to the property’s value –
regardless of its valuation date – was the 2016 appraisal valuing it at $1.3
million, the trial court awarded the marital home to the husband. On appeal,
the wife reiterates her argument that, under the terms of the prenuptial
agreement, the trial court was compelled to require the sale of the home and to
distribute the proceeds equally after crediting the husband with his $1.3
million investment.

As the appealing party, the wife 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 well-reasoned order, the wife’s challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the wife
has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2