Cited by

The trial court made similar findings in Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547 (1961).

123 N.H. 73, 76 (1983) (holding that a change in financial condition “due to fault or voluntary wastage or dissipation of one’s talents and assets,” is not grounds for modification), superseded on other grounds by statute as recognized by In the Matter of Sarvela and Sarvela, 154 N.H. 426, 435 (2006), and In the Matter of Rossino and Rossino, 153 N.H. 367, 370 (2006); see also Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 549-50 (1961) (holding that obligations resulting from associating with another partne

We need not decide whether parties can agree to a higher modification standard, such as the “catastrophic event” standard contained within the parties’ decree in this case, because we conclude that there was no change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a modification even under the “substantial change” standard.

We will not overturn a modification order unless it clearly appears on the evidence that there has been an abuse of judicial discretion.

A modification should not be granted in the absence of evidence of a substantial change in circumstances of the parties arising since the grant of the initial award, “making the current support amount either improper or unfair.” Morrill v. Millard (Morrill), 132 N.H. 685, 689-90, 570 A.2d 387, 390 (1990); accord Noddin v. Noddin, 123 N.H. 73, 76, 455 A.2d 1051, 1053 (1983); Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 548, 176 A.2d 708, 709 (1961).

To obtain a modification of support obligations, the moving party must show a substantial change in circumstances of the parties that makes continuing the original order “improper and unfair.” Richelson v. Richelson, 130 N.H. 137, 146, 536 A.2d 176, 182 (1987) (quoting Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 548, 176 A.2d 708, 709 (1961)).

McRae v. McRae, 115 N.H. 353, 354, 341 A.2d 762, 763 (1975); Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 549, 176 A.2d 708, 710 (1961).

Thus, the standard for modification, that financial capacities or the needs of the parties have changed substantially since the prior order, see Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 549, 176 A.2d 708, 710 (1961), does not necessarily require new proof of the marital standard as a benchmark in setting the level of any revised award.

To obtain a modification of support obligations, the defendant must show such a change in circumstances of the parties as to make the continuance of the original order “improper and unfair.” 123 N.H. at 76, 455 A.2d at 1053 (quoting Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 548, 176 A.2d 708, 709 (1961)).

ly do not approach a proportionate percentage of the present $2,500/month amount.” “To obtain a modification of support or alimony obligations, the [party seeking a modification] must show such a change in circumstances of the parties as to make the continuance of the original order ‘improper and unfair.’” Noddin v. Noddin, 123 N.H. 73, 76, 455 A.2d 1051, 1053 (1983) (quoting Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 548, 176 A.2d 708, 709 (1961)).

Ct. R. 155, and establishing both that a substantial change of circumstances had occurred since the original decree and that continuance of the original alimony provision would be improper and unfair.

*292 To obtain a modification of an alimony award, a change in circumstances of the parties must be shown as will make a continuance of the original provisions “improper and unfair.” Noddin v. Noddin, 123 N.H. 73, 76, 455 A.2d 1051, 1053 (1983) (quoting Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 548, 176 A.2d 708, 709 (1961)).

With respect to child support, RSA 458:17, I, provides that the court “may order a reasonable provision for their support and education.” “In setting support, the court will balance the needs of the children against the supporting parent’s ability to pay.” C. Douglas, 3 New Hampshire Practice, Family Law § 301 (1982); see Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 549-50, 176 A.2d 708, 710 (1961).

To obtain a modification of support or alimony obligations, the defendant must show such a change in circumstances of the parties as to make the continuance of the original order “improper and unfair.” Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 548, 176 A.2d 708, 709 (1961).

The court further ordered that “[a]ll prior orders, not inconsistent herewith, are to remain in full force and effect.” Plaintiff’s exceptions were transferred by Flynn, J. In a line of cases, including Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 176 A.2d 708 (1961), this court has consistently held that no change in a support order may be made absent proof of “a substantial change in the financial condition or needs of the parties.” Id.

Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 549, 176 A.2d 708, 710 (1961); Clark, Divorce Policy and Divorce Reform, 42 U. Colo.

Calderwood v. Calderwood, 114 N.H. 651, 653, 327 A.2d 704, 706 (1974); Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 549, 176 A.2d 708, 710 (1961).

Most commonly, the husband’s ability to pay is a vital factor to be considered by the court, and “in many of these cases, the financial productivity of the parties is not sufficient to meet the needs of everyone.” Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 550, 176 A.2d 708, 710 (1961); Madsen v. Madsen, 109 N.H. 457, 255 A.2d 604, 605 (1969).

Labrie v. Labrie, 113 N.H. 255, 305 A.2d 687 (1973); Peterson v. Buxton, 108 N.H. 77, 78-79, 227 A.2d 779, 780-81 (1967); Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 549-50, 176 A.2d 708, 710-11 (1961).

Douglas v. Douglas, 109 N.H. 41, 242 A.2d 78 (1968); Collette v. Collette, 108 N.H. 469, 238 A.2d 598 (1968); Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 176 A.2d 708 (1961); Kibbee v. Kibbee, 99 N.H. 215, 108 A.2d 46 (1954).

Kennard v. Kennard, 87 N.H. 320, 179 A. 414 (1935); Fortuna v. Fortuna, 103 N.H. 547, 176 A.2d 708 (1961); see Pflug v. Pflug, 92 N.H. 247, 29 A.2d 422 (1942); Annot., 1 A.L.R.3d 123, 138 (1965); Strater v. Strater, 159 Me. 508, 196 A.2d 94 (1963).