In the Matter of Theresa Rubin and James Rubin

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2022-0056, In the Matter of Theresa Rubin and
James Rubin, the court on December 28, 2022, issued the
following order:

The court has reviewed the written arguments and the record submitted
on appeal, and has determined to resolve the case by way of this order. See
Sup. Ct. R. 20(2). The petitioner, Theresa Rubin, appeals the final decree
entered by the Circuit Court (Weaver, J.) in her divorce from the respondent,
James Rubin. 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 decision absent an unsustainable exercise of
discretion. Id. To establish an unsustainable exercise of discretion, the
petitioner must demonstrate that the trial court’s decision was clearly
untenable or unreasonable to the prejudice of her 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). “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. 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).

Based upon our review of the trial court’s thorough and well-reasoned
order, the petitioner’s arguments, the relevant law, and the record submitted
on appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated reversible
error. Because we did not rely upon the documents in the appendices that the
petitioner filed with her reply brief, the respondent’s motion to strike those
appendices is moot. See Appeal of Silverstein, 163 N.H. 192, 199 n.1 (2012).

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2