Cited by

The defendant’s monthly pension income, however, was a proper consideration in the court’s decisions awarding alimony and dividing the marital estate.

“The trial court may order redistribution of any property falling within the joint marital estate, or within the individual estates of either spouse.” Holliday, 139 N.H. at 215, 651 A.2d at 14 (quotation omitted); see also Baker v. Baker, 120 N.H. 645, 647, 421 A.2d 998, 1000 (1980) (“Once the article in question is found to be properly within a party’s estate, the trial court has broad discretion in determining and ordering an equitable distribution of that property.”).

Once an asset “is found to be properly within a party’s estate, the trial court has broad discretion in determining and ordering an equitable distribution of that property.” Baker v. Baker, 120 N.H. 645, 647, 421 A.2d 998, 1000 (1980) (decided under prior law).

In 1980, this court held that such pay is not divisible as property in a divorce action.

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).

Lawlor v. Lawlor, 123 N.H. 163, 166, 459 A.2d 238, 241 (1983); Baker v. Baker, 120 N.H. 645, 652, 421 A.2d 998, 1002 (1980).

Baker v. Baker, 120 N.H. 645, 651, 421 A.2d 998, 1002 (1980); see Dunn v. Dunn, 120 N.H. 662, 663, 421 A.2d 1003, 1003-04 (1980); C. Douglas, 3 New Hampshire Practice, Family Law § 181 (1982).

In Baker v. Baker, 120 N.H. 645, 648, 421 A.2d 998, 1001 (1980), we stated that although military retirement pay was not a property interest itself subject to redistribution upon a divorce, a court “may consider it as a relevant factor in making equitable support orders and property distributions.” (Emphasis added.)

It is undisputed that the court should consider all of the parties’ assets and income in distributing property and ordering support.

this includes all of the assets and income of *342 both parties, such as wages, pensions, bank certificates, etc.” Baker v. Baker, 120 N.H. 645, 649, 421 A.2d 998, 1001 (1980) (citations omitted and additional emphasis added); Thayer v. Thayer, 119 N.H. 871, 872-73, 409 A.2d 1326, 1327 (1979) (contributions to pension and profit-sharing plan are relevant to alimony and child-support award).

Baker v. Baker, 120 N.H. 645, 647, 421 A.2d 998, 1000 (1980); see RSA 458:19 (amended by Laws 1981, 275:1); RSA 458:22.

We have defined property to possess characteristics such as “cash surender value, loan value, redemption value, lump sum value, and value realizable after death.” Baker v. Baker, 120 N.H. 645, 648, 421 A.2d 998, 1000 (1980).

Because we have held that the ordinance is preempted by State law, there is no need for us to address the issue of federal preemption.

The trial court has wide discretion in determining matters of child support, Baker v. Baker, 120 N.H. 645, 651, 421 A.2d 998, 1002 (1980), and is especially suited to determine “what in the light of all the circumstances then existing would be just.” Morphy v. Morphy, 114 N.H. 86, 88, 315 A.2d 631, 632 (1974); see Taylor v. Taylor, 108 N.H. 193, 195, 230 A.2d 737, 739 (1967).

We have this date held that the addition of the new no-fault cause for divorce, RSA 458:7-a (Supp. 1979), did not repeal any of the other causes based on fault and that a party who seeks a divorce on a fault-related cause cannot be deprived of the opportunity to prove that cause merely because the other party relied on the no-fault cause.