Cited by

In the Matter of Harvey & Harvey, 153 N.H. 425, 437 (2006), overruled on other grounds by In the Matter of Chamberlin & Chamberlin, 155 N.H. 13, 16 (2007); see also Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 656- 57 (1978) (upholding trial court’s exclusion of purported debt from marital estate where there was evidence upon which trial court could conclude that repayment of debt would represent satisfaction of a moral, not legal, obligation).

We have recognized that a “moral” obligation for repayment cannot properly be characterized as a debt chargeable to the marital estate.

Although it is well-settled that “[t]ax consequences should be considered by attorneys and masters in their negotiations or rulings,” Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 656 (1978), neither the statute nor our caselaw provides guidance as to when the trial court should consider the tax consequences of its division of property.

The trial court has broad discretion in support matters, and the appellant has the burden of showing how the court’s order was improper or unfair.

The trial court was required to “view the parties’ real and personal property as a whole and propose an equitable distribution.” Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 656, 392 A.2d 148, 150 (1978).

The decree did not specifically address the retirement incentive, but we have held that the failure to evaluate the parties’ property item by item is not reversible error where, as here, the record is sufficient to enable us to determine whether the property settlement is unjust.

e, 132 N.H. 402, 404-05, 565 A.2d 1069, 1071-72 (1989) (court did not err, under circumstances of the case, in ordering divorced parent to pay reasonable college expenses of adult child); Merrifield v. Merrifield, 122 N.H. 372, 374-75, 445 A.2d 1087, 1088 (1982) (no abuse of discretion when court declined to order divorced parent to contribute toward college costs of adult child); Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 657, 392 A.2d 148, 151 (1978) (within court’s discretion to order parties to jointly con

For a number of years, this court has upheld the discretion of trial courts to include allowances for college expenses in initial child support orders, see, e.g., Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 657, 392 A.2d 148, 151 (1978); Payette v. Payette, 85 N.H. 297, 298, 157 A. 531, 531-32 (1931), or to modify initial support orders to include the payment of college expenses by either one or both of the parents; see, e.g., Kayle v. Kayle, 132 N.H. 402, 403, 565 A.2d 1069, 1071-72 (1989); French v. French, 1

The master had no duty to divide each asset equally; rather, her responsibility was to look at the assets as a whole and propose an equitable distribution.

Hodgins v. Hodgins, 126 N.H. 711, 714, 497 A.2d 1187, 1189 (1985); MacDonald v. MacDonald, 122 N.H. 339, 342, 443 A.2d 1017, 1018 (1982); Grandmaison, supra at 271, 401 A.2d at 1059; Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 656, 392 A.2d 148, 150 (1978).

MacDonald, supra at 341-42, 443 A.2d at 1018; see also Baker v. Baker, 120 N.H. 645, 648-49, 421 A.2d 998, 1001 (1980); Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 657, 392 A.2d 148, 150 (1978).

The master’s task is to view the parties’ real and personal property as a whole and propose an equitable distribution.

Grandmaison v. Grandmaison, 119 N.H. 268, 271, 401 A.2d 1057, 1059 (1979); Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 656, 392 A.2d 148, 150 (1978); see Comer v. Comer, 110 N.H. 505, 507-08, 272 A.2d 586, 587-88 (1970).

Heinze v. Heinze, 122 N.H. 358, 360, 444 A.2d 559, 561 (1982); Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 655, 392 A.2d 148, 149 (1978).

[have] been given broad discretion in determining questions relating to the division of property between the two parties.” Henderson v. Henderson, 121 N.H. 807, 809, 435 A.2d 133, 135 (1981); see Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 656, 392 A.2d 148, 150 (1978).

The defendant further argues that the master failed to consider the tax consequences of his decision in awarding the bulk of the support payments in the form of alimony, rather than in the *663 form of child support.

Grandmaison v. Grandmaison, 119 N.H. 268, 271, 401 A.2d 1057, 1059 (1979) (quoting Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 656, 392 A.2d 148, 150 (1978)).

Hanson v. Hanson, 121 N.H. at 720, 433 A.2d at 1311; Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 656, 392 A.2d 148, 150 (1978).

Goudreault v. Goudreault, 120 N.H. 140, 140, 412 A.2d 736, 736 (1980); Grandmaison v. Grandmaison, 119 N.H. 268, 270, 401 A.2d 1058 -59 (1979); Hunneyman v. Hunneyman, 118 N.H. 652, 652-53, 392 A.2d 147, 148 (1978); Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 655, 392 A.2d 148, 149 (1978).

Grandmaison v. Grandmaison, 119 N.H. 268, 271, 401 A.2d 1057, 1059 (1979); Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 656, 392 A.2d 148, 150 (1978); see Comer v. Comer, 110 N.H. 505, 508, 272 A.2d 586, 587-88 (1970).

Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 392 A.2d 148 (1978); Ames v. Ames, 117 N.H. 554, 374 A.2d 1181 (1977); Ford v. Ford, 112 N.H. 270, 293 A.2d 605 (1972).

The trial court’s alimony and property division determinations will not be set aside unless the defendant can show a clear abuse of discretion.