Cited by

However, “[f]or an error to require reversal on appeal, it must have been prejudicial to the party claiming it.” Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 545 (1992) (quotation and brackets omitted).

Laflamme v. Laflamme, 144 N.H. 524, 527 (1999); Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 544-45 2 (1992); Gnirk v. Gnirk, 134 N.H. 199, 206 (1991); see also RSA 458-C:7, I(a) (2018).

Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 545 (1992) (“For an error to require reversal on appeal, it must have been prejudicial to the party claiming it.” (quotation and brackets omitted)).

Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 545 (1992) (“For an error to require reversal on appeal, it must have been prejudicial to the party claiming it.” (quotation and brackets omitted)).

Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 547 (1992) (concluding that plaintiff “failed to establish that the master’s allocation of visitation costs constituted an abuse of discretion” where “[a] great deal of evidence indicated that the plaintiff’s financial condition was far stronger than the defendant’s, and far less desperate than he claimed”).

Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 545 (1992) (“For an error to require reversal on appeal, it must [have been] prejudicial to the party claiming it.” (quotation omitted)).

As such, “the guidelines shall apply in all child support cases, including orders modifying an existing support order.” Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 543 (1992); see RSA 458-C:4, I (2004).

“For an error to require reversal on appeal, it must have been prejudicial to the party claiming it.” Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 545 (1992) (quotation and brackets omitted).

In the Matter of Forcier & Mueller, 152 N.H. 463, 465-66 (2005); In the Matter of Gordon and Gordon, 147 N.H. 693, 699-700 (2002); Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 545 (1992).

to hold that the court’s authority to order a reduction mandated such a reduction, or limited the court’s discretion to deny the reduction if the circumstances warranted denial.” Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 546 (1992).

RSA 458-C:4, II (2004); Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 545 (1992).

The trial court denied the defendant’s petition, finding that he failed to prove “that a substantial change in circumstances ha[d] arisen since the initial award, making the current support amount either improper or unfair.” Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 546 (1992) (quotation omitted).

RSA 458-C:4, II; Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 545 (1992).

This presumption may be rebutted, however, by a finding that application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate.

Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 544 (1992); RSA 458-C:4, II (1992).

In Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540 (1992), “the superior court neither ordered the defendant to pay child support pursuant to the guidelines, nor specifically stated its reasons for departing from the guidelines.” Id.

This presumption may be rebutted by a finding of the presiding officer that application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate.

Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 544 (1992); see RSA 458-C:4, I-II (1992).

Our child support statute, RSA chapter 458-C, “clearly mandates that the superior court either apply the guidelines to determine the parties’ respective support obligations, or make a specific finding on the record that application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate.” Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 544 (1992); see also RSA 458-C:4, II.

“The legislature enacted the child support guidelines in 1988 to establish a uniform system for determining the amount of child support to be awarded.” Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 543 (1992) (quotation omitted); see also RSA 458-C:l (1992).

The Table establishes uniform guidelines and is therefore consistent with the purpose of the child support guidelines, which is to establish a “uniform system” for determining the amount of child support to be awarded.

“To obtain an order modifying a support obligation, a party must show that a substantial change in circumstances has arisen since the initial award, making the current support amount either improper or unfair.” Giles v. Giles, 136 N.H. 540, 546, 618 A.2d 286, 290 (1992) (quotation omitted); see Norberg v. Norberg, 135 N.H. 620, 622, 609 A.2d 1194, 1196 (1992).

The plaintiff’s second procedural argument, even assuming its correctness, is without consequence because we affirm, as a matter of law, the trial court’s ruling on the merits.

We will affirm the findings and rulings of a marital master unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are legally erroneous.

On appeal, we will affirm the findings and rulings of the marital master unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are-legally erroneous.

We will uphold the recommendations of a marital master in a divorce proceeding unless they are unsupported by the evidence or are erroneous as a matter of law.