Cited by

See, e.g., Sutton, 148 N.H. at 677 (noting that parties married in 1970 and, as of 1981, husband had a defined benefit pension through employment); Rothbart v. Rothbart, 141 N.H. 71, 73 (1996) (noting that parties had been married twenty-three years and that husband had been employed almost fourteen years with his current employer, through which he had a vested pension).

The Hodgins formula is used to divide pensions that are defined benefit plans.

at 715; see also In the Matter of Taber-McCarthy & McCarthy, 160 N.H. 112, 117 (2010); Rothbart v. Rothbart, 141 N.H. 71, 76 (1996).

“In Hodgins, we held that under certain circumstances, the apportionment of future pension benefits may be determined according to a formula.” Rothbart v. Rothbart, 141 N.H. 71, 73 (1996).

Hodgins, 126 N.H. at 716; see also Rothbart v. Rothbart, 141 N.H. 71, 74-76 (1996) (actual, not projected, pension benefit will be divided under Hodgins absent gross inequity; non-employee spouse may benefit by post-divorce pay raises increasing pension benefits).

The Hodgins formula is designed to help trial courts avoid “the problem of valuation” when the value of the pension “is, by its nature, impossible to determine at the time of divorce.” Rothbart v. Rothbart, 141 N.H. 71, 74 (1996) (quotation omitted).

The court did not award the petitioner any other share of the respondent’s future supplemental retirement benefits, distinguishing them from the future increases discussed in Rothbart v. Rothbart, 141 N.H. 71 (1996).

We afford the trial court broad discretion in determining and ordering an equitable distribution of the parties’ marital property.

He argues his retirement accounts, specifically an IRA and a 401(k) account, should have been divided in accordance with the rule developed in Hodgins v. Hodgins, 126 N.H. 711 (1985), and reiterated in subsequent cases, that “only those pension benefits which are attributable to the retiree’s employment during *697 the marriage are subject to distribution.” Rothbart v. Rothbart, 141 N.H. 71, 75 (1996) (quotation omitted).

Rothbart v. Rothbart, 141 N.H. 71, 74-75 (1996) (explaining method to distribute portion of benefits when actually received).

In a divorce action, the trial court has broad discretion in determining an equitable distribution of the marital estate.

To interpret the decree otherwise would unfairly grant the benefits attributable to cost-of-living increases to the respondent alone.

“ [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 trial court has broad discretion in determining and ordering distribution of property in the marital estate.