Cited by

Murphy, 116 N.H. at 675; Economides v. Economides, 116 N.H. 191, 195 (1976); In the Matter of Levreault & Levreault, 147 N.H. 656, 658 (2002).

Moreover, we are cognizant of the wide discretion afforded trial judges in matters of divorce, alimony and child support, and where possible have declined to require “use of fixed formulas and mechanical decisional techniques” in such cases.

Economides v. Economides, 116 N.H. 191, 193, 357 A.2d 871, 873 (1976) (mechanical decisional techniques generally rejected in domestic cases).

Unlike the recovery granted on a contract, for example, an award of alimony and child support takes into account all the circumstances in which both the obligor and obligee spouse find themselves, see, e.g., Economides v. Economides, 116 N.H. 191, 194, 357 A.2d 871, 873 (1976), and is subject to *697 modification on the motion of either party, if those circumstances change, see, e.g., Bisig supra; Richelson supra.

In matters of property settlement and divorce, we allocate broad discretion to the trial court, Economides v. Economides, 116 N.H. 191, 193, 357 A.2d 871, 872 (1976), and will set aside its determinations of property division only where the appealing party can demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion.

Symmes v. Symmes, 118 N.H. 488, 387 A.2d 1181 (1978); Economides v. Economides, 116 N.H. 191, 357 A.2d 871 (1976).

there must be evidence in the record or a finding of fact on this matter to support a decree awarding support.” Economides v. Economides, 116 N.H. 191, 194, 357 A.2d 871, 873 (1976).

“In resolving this question we are mindful of the continuity of decisional law allocating broad discretion to the trial court in de *653 termining matters of property settlement, alimony, and divorce.” Economides v. Economides, 116 N.H. 191, 193, 357 A.2d 871, 872 (1976).

It is true that the master’s findings were not as specific as they might have been and that our review would have been facilitated by particularized appraisals of the value of the parties’ possessions.

We have repeatedly stated that matters of support and alimony are for the trial court to determine in the exercise of its sound discretion unrestricted by fixed formulas and guidelines.

Her needs are as obvious as the plaintiff’s ability to pay, which is also in issue here.

Eeal estate consisting of thirty-four acres of land in Milton valued at $13,600 was deemed the sole property of defendant, but it was ordered that upon sale either in whole or in part “the plaintiff shall be paid 25% of the gross proceeds.” Unlike Economides v. Economides, 116 N.H. 191, 357 A.2d 871 (1976), the defendant here made no requests for findings.

“It has consistently been the policy of this court to reject invitations to restrict trial judges by mandating the use of fixed formulas and mechanical decisional techniques in cases involving questions of divorce, alimony and child support, and property di *675 vision.” Economides v. Economides, 116 N.H. 191, 357 A.2d 871, 873 (1976).