Cited by

“Fair market value is the price a willing buyer and a willing seller would probably arrive at through fair negotiations, taking into account all considerations that fairly might be brought forward and reasonably be given substantial weight in such bargaining.” Rattee v. Rattee, 146 N.H. 44, 50 (2001) (quotation omitted).

In determining values for the purposes of the division of marital property, courts generally look to fair market value.

“Fair market value is the price a willing buyer and a willing seller would probably arrive at through fair negotiations, taking into account all considerations that fairly might be brought forward and reasonably be given substantial weight in such bargaining.” Rattee v. Rattee, 146 N.H. 44, 50 (2001) (quotation omitted).

Under New Hampshire law, an asset may be equitably distributed to a party and the income from the asset may be used to determine child support.

He cites a single case, Rattee v. Rattee, 146 N.H. 44 (2001), in which we rejected the “double counting” theory with respect to company valuation and child support.

Nonetheless, relying upon Rattee v. Rattee, 146 N.H. 44 (2001), the respondent contends that the trial court properly took into account accrued tax liabilities in determining the fair market value of the parties’ properties.

Accordingly, “it is not necessarily ‘double-counting’ to treat the [S- corporation] as marital property, award it to [the respondent], offset the award to [the petitioner], and then use the income from the asset to determine the level of child support.” Rattee v. Rattee, 146 N.H. 44, 49 (2001).

Moreover, “[o]ur case law is clear that trial courts should not employ income-averaging over a number of years to determine child support obligations.” Rattee v. Rattee, 146 N.H. 44, 46 (2001).

Therefore, how federal income taxation statutes define “income” is of little relevance to our interpretation of gross income under the child support guidelines.

As we explained in Rattee v. Rattee, 146 N.H. 44, 48-49 (2001), property division and child support serve different functions and are governed by different requirements.

“Fair market value is defined as the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller when the former is not under any compulsion to buy and the latter is not under any compulsion to sell, both parties having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.” G. Skoloff et al., Valuation and Distribution of Marital Property § 29.05[2] (2003); see Rattee v. Rattee, 146 N.H. 44, 50 (2001).

For instance, trial courts may adjust an award when applying the uniform child support guidelines would result in a “confiscatory support order.” See RSA 458-C:5, I(j) (Supp. 2002); Rattee v. Rattee, 146 N.H. 44, 46-47 (2001).

RSA 458-C:3, II (Supp. 2001); Rattee v. Rattee, 146 N.H. 44, 46 (2001).

Rattee v. Rattee, 146 N.H. 44, 46 (2001); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).

Husband correctly notes that courts generally use fair market value in determining an appropriate division of property in divorce proceedings.

Rattee v. Rattee, 146 N.H. 44, 49 (2001) (asset may be property for equitable distribution purposes upon dissolution of marriage and income from the asset may be used to determine child support obligation).