Cited by

Murphy v. Murphy, 116 N.H. 672, 674-75 (1976) (reversing alimony order as “paltry and penurious” given wife’s testimony regarding her gallbladder removal, other surgeries, and congenital kidney ailment); see also Marsh v. Marsh, 123 N.H. 448, 451 (1983) (affirming alimony award, over husband’s charge that it was excessive, where wife “testified that.

The trial court’s decision was a sustainable exercise of its discretion.

Nevertheless, trial courts have broad discretion in awarding alimony.

Rahn v. Rahn, 123 N.H. 222, 225, 459 A.2d 268, 269-70 (1983); Marsh v. Marsh, 123 N.H. 448, 462 A.2d 126 (1983).

Hodgins v. Hodgins, 126 N.H. 711, 714-15, 497 A.2d 1187, 1189-90 (1985) (vested pension rights); Rahn v. Rahn, 123 N.H. 222, 225, 459 A.2d 268, 269-70 (1983) (duration of marriage); Ebbert v. Ebbert, 123 N.H. 252, 255, 459 A.2d 282, 285 (1983) (tax consequences); Marsh v. Marsh, 123 N.H. 448, 450, 462 A.2d 126, 128 (1983) (age, health, stations, occupations, employ-ability of parties); Henderson v. Henderson, 121 N.H. 807, 810, 435 A.2d 133,135 (1981) (standard of living established during marri

“[T]rial courts have broad discretion in matters involving alimony and property distribution, and we will uphold their decisions unless there was an abuse of that discretion.” Marsh v. Marsh, 123 N.H. 448, 451, 462 A.2d 126, 128 (1983).

Marsh v. Marsh, 123 N.H. 448, 450-51, 462 A.2d 126, 128 (1983); Ames v. Ames, 117 N.H. 554, 555, 374 A.2d 1181, 1181-82 (1977); RSA 458:19 (Supp. 1989).

eal, Rollins v. Rollins, 122 N.H. 6, 9-10, 440 A.2d 438, 440-41 (1982), and similarly grant that court broad discretion in awarding and modifying alimony and child support generally, see, e.g., Richelson v. Richelson, 130 N.H. 137, 146, 536 A.2d 176, 182 (1987) (child support modification); Bisig v. Bisig, 124 N.H. 372, 375-76, 469 A.2d 1348, 1350 (1983) (alimony modification); Marsh v. Marsh, 123 N.H. 448, 451, 462 A.2d 126, 128 (1983) (alimony award); Kennard v. Kennard, 81 N.H. 509, 514, 129

We will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, see Marsh v. Marsh, 123 N.H. 448, 450, 462 A.2d 126, 128 (1983); and questions briefed must be set forth in the notice of appeal, see Sup.

Discretion is not an exact science, and the party who seeks to overturn its exercise has the burden of showing that it was somehow abused.

Hannemann supra (citing Marsh v. Marsh, 123 N.H. 448, 451, 462 A.2d 126, 128 (1983)).

The trial court has broad discretion in matters of property distribution in a divorce action, and we will uphold its decision unless an abuse of discretion is shown.

“Notwithstanding the numerous considerations involved, trial courts have broad discretion in matters involving alimony and *714 property distribution, and we will uphold their decisions unless there was an abuse of that discretion.” Marsh v. Marsh, 123 N.H. 448, 451, 462 A.2d 126, 128 (1983).

Marsh v. Marsh, 123 N.H. 448, 451, 462 A.2d 126, 128 (1983); Fortuna v. Fortuna supra.

We will not set aside a master’s determination of an appropriate alimony and/or support award unless an abuse of discretion is shown.

“Notwithstanding the numerous considerations involved, trial courts have broad discretion in matters involving alimony....” Marsh v. Marsh, 123 N.H. 448, 451, 462 A.2d 126, 128 (1983).