Cited by

Although there is a presumption that an equal division of the marital property is an equitable one, RSA 458:16-a, II (2018), a court is not required to equally divide the assets to effect an equitable distribution, see Dombrowski v. Dombrowski, 131 N.H. 654, 660 (1989).

Although the trial court did not make a specific finding that Eric was an “innocent party,” because it granted a divorce on fault grounds, we assume it made such a finding.

Such consideration was proper.

Absent such a record, we assume, for the purposes of appeal, that the evidence supported the trial court’s findings, and we limit our review to legal errors apparent on the record available to us. See Dombrowski v. Dombrowski, 131 N.H. 654, 663 (1989).

A trial court has “no duty to divide each asset equally”; rather, its only responsibility is to “look at the assets as a whole and propose an equitable distribution” of them.

Moreover, without a transcript of the hearing, we are unable to determine whether the trial court, when making its ruling, relied on any additional legal grounds other than the agreement of the parties.

The master found that “the Plaintiff had full knowledge of the [original] divorce action, that he and the Defendant discussed it from time to time through the years but that, for whatever reason but by mutual agreement, both parties decided not to pursue the action at that time.” In the absence of a record of the proceedings below, this finding is presumed to be supported by the evidence.

However, Teichman failed to raise this issue in his notice of appeal and, therefore, we will not consider it.

Ct. R. 16(3)(b); Dombrowski v. Dombrowski, 131 N.H. 654, 663, 559 A.2d 828, 833 (1989) (“questions briefed must be set forth in the notice of appeal”).

Ct. R. 16(3)(b); see Dombrowski v. Dombrowski, 131 N.H. 654, 662, 559 A.2d 828, 833 (1989).

Dombrowski v. Dombrowski, 131 N.H. 654, 662, 559 A.2d 828, 833 (1989); State v. Dellorfano, 128 N.H. 628, 632-33, 517 A.2d 1163, 1166 (1986); State v. Laliberte, 124 N.H. 621, 621, 474 A.2d 1025, 1025 (1984).

Because the defendant has chosen not to submit a transcript of the proceedings before the trial court, our review is limited to errors apparent on the record available to us. See Dombrowski v. Dombrowski, 131 N.H. 654, 663, 559 A.2d 828, 833 (1989); Cote v. Cote, 123 N.H. 376, 377-78, 461 A.2d 566, 567 (1983).

As we have no evidence the estoppel argument was raised below, we do not address it on appeal.

Dombrowski v. Dombrowski, 131 N.H. 654, 663, 559 A.2d 828, 833 (1989) (where no record of a hearing is made, we assume that the evidence supported the findings).

Dombrowski v. Dombrowski, 131 N.H. 654, 663, 559 A.2d 828, 833 (1989); Cote v. Cote, 123 N.H. 376, 377-78, 461 A.2d 566, 567 (1983); Adams v. Adams, 117 N.H. 43, 44, 369 A.2d 196, 197 (1977); Sandberg v. Sandberg, 81 N.H. 317, 317, 125 A. 259, 259 (1924).

Dombrowski v. Dombrowski, 131 N.H. 654, 662, 559 A.2d 828, 833 (1989); see also Sup.

Because she erred in valuing the pension, however, on remand she will have to make adjustments in the entire property settlement, once she has revalued the pension, in order to *168 comply with the Hodgins rule.