In the Matter of Kelly Lavoie and Justin Lavoie

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2023-0428, In the Matter of Kelly Lavoie and
Justin Lavoie, the court on July 15, 2024, 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 respondent, Justin Lavoie (husband), appeals the final
decree of the Circuit Court (Alfano, J.), in his divorce from the petitioner, Kelly
Lavoie (wife). He argues that the trial court erred in: (1) ordering an unequal
property division; (2) valuing the marital home; and (3) denying his request for
child support. We affirm.

The husband first argues that the trial court erred in ordering an
unequal property division without stating its reasons for the disparity. “The
trial court is afforded broad discretion in determining matters of property
distribution when fashioning a final divorce decree.” In the Matter of Sanborn
& Bart, 174 N.H. 343, 353 (2021). “We will not overturn a trial court’s decision
on these matters absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion or an error of
law.” Id. “If the court’s findings can reasonably be made on the evidence
presented, they will stand.” Id. In ordering an equitable division of property
between the parties, the court “shall presume that an equal division is an
equitable distribution of property, . . . unless the court decides that an equal
division would not be appropriate or equitable after considering one or more”
enumerated factors. RSA 458:16-a, II (2018).

The trial court is required to “specify written reasons for the division of
property which it orders.” RSA 458:16-a, IV (2018). If the “court concludes
that an unequal distribution of property is warranted, it should state its
reasons and make specific findings and rulings supporting its decision.” In the
Matter of Dube & Dube, 163 N.H. 575, 582 (2012). A court may satisfy this
requirement by citing facts from the record that reflect the factors listed in RSA
458:16-a. Id.

The husband argues that “[t]he large disparity in the distribution could
have been easily rectified by dividing the proceeds of the [wife’s] NS1 stock
[options],” which were valued at $90,000, rather than awarding them entirely
to her. However, the court awarded the parties’ condominium, in which they
had approximately $200,000 in equity, entirely to the husband. The court
explained that it awarded the stock options entirely to the wife to offset the
award of the condominium entirely to the husband. We conclude the record
establishes an objective basis sufficient to sustain the trial court’s property
division, see Sanborn, 174 N.H at 353, and that the court made sufficient
written findings to support its decision, see Dube, 163 N.H. at 582-83.

The husband next argues that the trial court erred in valuing the marital
home at $640,000. He asserts that, on November 8, 2022, the parties
stipulated that the value was $580,000. The record supports the trial court’s
finding that, on May 23, 2023, the second day of trial, the parties stipulated
that the value of the marital home was approximately $640,000, with a
mortgage debt of approximately $229,000, resulting in approximately $411,000
in equity to be divided equally between them. Accordingly, we find no error.
See Sanborn, 174 N.H at 353.

Finally, the husband argues that the trial court erred in denying his
request for child support. We will not disturb the trial court’s rulings regarding
child support absent an unsustainable exercise of discretion or an error of law.
In the Matter of Ndyaija & Ndyaija, 173 N.H. 127, 140 (2020). There is a
rebuttable presumption that a child support award calculated under the
guidelines is the correct amount of child support. Id. at 141; RSA 458-C:4, II
(2018). The presumption may be overcome, and the trial court may deviate
from the guidelines, when a party shows by a preponderance of the evidence
that the application of the guidelines would be “unjust or inappropriate,” RSA
458-C:4, II, because of “[s]pecial circumstances” considered “in light of the best
interests of the child.” RSA 458-C:5, I (2018); Ndyaija, 173 N.H. at 142.

In this case, the court ordered a deviation from the child support
guidelines based upon its finding that an order of no child support “will allow
both parties to maintain a home and lifestyle for the child.” Based upon this
record, we cannot conclude that the trial court unsustainably exercised its
discretion or erred as a matter of law in denying the husband’s request for
child support. See Ndyaija, 173 N.H. at 140.

The husband raises numerous issues in his reply brief that he did not
raise in his opening brief. We do not consider issues raised for the first time on
appeal in a reply brief. Panas v. Harakis & K-Mart Corp., 129 N.H. 591, 617-
18 (1987).

Affirmed.

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

Timothy A. Gudas,
Clerk

2