Cited by

We previously considered escalation clauses in Heinze v. Heinze, 122 N.H. 358 (1982), and In the Matter of Donovan & Donovan, 152 N.H. 55 (2005).

In Heinze v. Heinze, 122 N.H. 358, 361 (1982), we upheld an escalation clause that automatically increased the obligor’s support payment at the time of any wage increase based upon the percentage of his gross income that he was then paying for child support.

Contrary to the petitioner’s assertions, a trial court has the discretion in both original and modified support orders to require divorced parties to contribute to their children’s college education, see LeClair, 137 N.H. at 218-19, and to require the non-custodial parent to continue paying child support while the children are attending college, see Heinze v. Heinze, 122 N.H. 358, 360 (1982).

Heinze v. Heinze, 122 N.H. 358, 360, 444 A.2d 559, 561 (1982); accord French, 117 N.H. at 699-700, 378 A.2d at 1128-29 (rejecting argument that the trial court “had no jurisdiction to award educational expenses for adults”).

Although fault may not be considered in making a division of property following a no-fault divorce decree, property need not be distributed equally, though it must be distributed equitably.

The trial judge in such a case need not respond expressly to every specific request filed by a party, but the court is obligated to make findings of the “basic,” see Pugliese v. Town of Northwood, 119 N.H. 743, 749, 408 A.2d 113, 117 (1979), or “essential” facts, see Heinze v. Heinze, 122 N.H. 358, 362, 444 A.2d 559, 562 (1982), that are sufficient to support the ultimate decision.

A master need only make findings, in narrative form, of the essential facts which are sufficient to support his or her decision.

In another recent case, we upheld an order to sell a residence and divide the proceeds equally between the spouses of a long-term marriage.

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).

Murano v. Murano, 122 N.H. 223, 227, 442 A.2d 597, 599 (1982); see, e.g., Parker v. Parker, 122 N.H. 658, 662, 448 A.2d 414, 416 (1982); Heinze v. Heinze, 122 N.H. 358, 360, 444 A.2d 559, 562 (1982).

A master need only make findings, in narrative form, of the essential facts which are sufficient to support his decision.

Heinze v. Heinze, 122 N.H. 358, 360, 444 A.2d 559, 561 (1982); Hanson v. Hanson, 121 N.H. 719, 720, 433 A.2d 1310, 1311 (1981); Symmes v. Symmes, 118 N.H. 488, 490, 387 A.2d 1181, 1182 (1978).

Because the narrative of the master’s report found facts that were consistent with the Perreault standard, see Heinze v. Heinze, 122 N.H. 358, 362, 444 A.2d 559, 562 (1982); R. J. Berke & Co. v. J. P. Griffin, Inc., 116 N.H. 760, 767, 367 A.2d 583, 588 (1976), we affirm.