Cited by

With respect to Husband’s challenge specifically to the distribution of the homes, although the statute contains a presumption in favor of equal division, RSA 458:16-a, II, that presumption can be overcome by “special circumstances” such as “a short marriage” and “a party’s exclusive premarital possession of an asset that continues after the marriage,” Hoffman v. Hoffman, 143 N.H. 514, 520 (1999).

Kempton, 167 N.H. at 798-99; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 143 N.H. 514, 519 (1999) (observing that “[t]he trial judge was in the best position to evaluate the evidence, measure its persuasiveness and appraise the credibility of witnesses” (quotation omitted)).

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

It was appropriate for the trial court to consider these facts when making its decision.

See, e.g., In the Matter of Sutton & Sutton, 148 N.H. 676, 680 (2002); Hoffman v. Hoffman, 143 N.H. 514, 519 (1999).

In Hoffman v. Hoffman, 143 N.H. 514 (1999), the trial court took into account the parties’ five-year cohabitation period along with their twelve-year marriage, concluded that the parties’ relationship was long-term, and awarded the plaintiff, among other things, nearly half of the marital estate.

Hoffman v. Hoffman, 143 N.H. 514, 521 (1999) (reviewing trial court’s valuation of marital assets for unsustainable exercise of discretion); cf. In the Matter of Nyhan and Nyhan, 147 N.H. 768, 771 (2002) (‘We reiterate the rule that trial courts are free to exercise their sound discretion in establishing an appropriate valuation date for the equitabl

Crowe, 148 N.H. at 222; see also Hoffman v. Hoffman, 143 N.H. 514, 522 (1999).

While the testimony presented by the parties conflicted, the trial judge was in the best position to evaluate the evidence, measure its persuasiveness and assess the credibility of witnesses.

creates a presumption that equal distribution of marital property is equitable.” Hoffman v. Hoffman, 143 N.H. 514, 520 (1999).

Hoffman v. Hoffman, 143 N.H. 514, 517 (1999); see also Williams, 613 A.2d at 202.

Thus, the trial court has broad discretion in distributing property in the marital estate.

The trial court has broad discretion in determining and ordering the distribution of property and the payment of alimony in fashioning a final divorce decree.