Cited by

However, we reiterate that, although the court “need not respond expressly to every specific request [for findings and rulings] filed by a party,” it must “make findings of the basic or essential facts that are sufficient to support the ultimate decision.” Magrauth v. Magrauth, 136 N.H. 757, 760 (1993) (quotation omitted).

question of fact within the trial court’s discretion); In the Matter of Letendre & Letendre, 149 N.H. 31, 34 (2002) (matters of property distribution and alimony are within the trial court’s discretion); In the Matter of Kamil & Kamil, 173 N.H. 424, 437 (2020) (reviewing trial court’s decision on admissibility of evidence under unsustainable exercise of discretion standard); Magrauth v. Magrauth, 136 N.H. 757, 760-62 (1993) (reviewing trial court’s failure to make sufficient findings and rulings

In the absence of such a request, the trial court is generally not required to make specific findings.

Accordingly, we remand and order the court to make findings and rulings to support its determination.

the parties [to a divorce] make specific requests for findings and rulings, as they did in this case, the court should state its reasons and make specific findings and rulings supporting its decision.” Magrauth v. Magrauth, 136 N.H. 757, 763 (1993).

In Magrauth v. Magrauth, 136 N.H. 757, 763 (1993), we explained that “if the superior court determines that an equal division is equitable, and the parties have not requested findings and rulings..., it need only state that, after considering the relevant factors enumerated in RSA 458:16-a, II, it has decided to make an equal division which is presumptiv

*86 Magrauth v. Magrauth, 136 N.H. 757, 760 (1993) (quotation, brackets and ellipses omitted).

“ [Tjrial courts are afforded broad discretion in divorce matters,” Magrauth v. Magrauth, 136 N.H. 757, 760, 622 A.2d 837, 838 (1993) (quotation omitted), and we will not overturn the trial court’s rulings regarding property settlement absent an abuse of discretion, see Rothbart v. Rothbart, 141 N.H. 71, 74, 677 A.2d 151, 153 (1996), or error of law.

The purpose of this requirement is to allow this court to have an adequate basis on which to review the decision of the PELRB.

Magrauth v. Magrauth, 136 N.H. 757, 763, 622 A.2d 837, 840 (1993); Perron v. City of Somersworth, 131 N.H. 303, 305, 553 A.2d 283, 284 (1988).

RSA 458:16-a, II; Magrauth v. Magrauth, 136 N.H. 757, 763, 622 A.2d 837, 840 (1993).

by providing it with the actual basis for the trial court’s decision.” Magrauth v. Magrauth, 136 N.H. 757, 760, 622 A.2d 837, 838 (1993) (quotation and brackets omitted).

We note that the defendant did not properly challenge the division of property on the basis that the order lacks written reasons, see Magrauth v. Magrauth, 136 N.H. 757, 763, 622 A.2d 837, 840 (1993) (interpreting RSA 458:16-a, III), since the issue was not raised in his motion to reconsider or in his notice of appeal.