Cited by

Opinions in New Hampshire that cite In re Fowler, 764 A.2d 916.

20 citing documents.

In the Matter of Whitehead & Whitehead 2026 N.H. 13 N.H. 2026
ding what constitutes “reasonable needs” under RSA 458:19-a, I(a) and (b), we have clarified that “[t]he supported spouse’s needs are not, however, limited to the barest necessities,” and an alimony determination “should also take into account the standard of living established during the marriage and the financial status of both plaintiff and defendant.” In the Matter of Fowler and Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 521 (2000) (brackets omitted).
In the Matter of Donald Nixon and Roxanne Nixon N.H. 2025
Canaway, 161 N.H. at 291; see also In the Matter of Fowler & Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 520 (2000) (“The primary purpose of alimony is rehabilitative.
In the Matter of Rebecca Stanley-Snelling and Randall Snelling N.H. 2018
In the Matter of Fowler & Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 519 (2000).
In the Matter of Steven Hoyt and Lesley Hoyt 196 A.3d 85 N.H. 2018
The petitioner argues that our decisions in In the Matter of Fowler and Fowler, 145 N.H. 516 (2000), and Nassar provide the requisite interpretations for temporary and permanent alimony.
In the Matter of Aileen MacNaughton and Martin Robert N.H. 2016
The husband next argues that the primary purpose of alimony is rehabilitative, see In the Matter of Fowler & Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 520 (2000), and that the wife’s reemployment, which started in the late summer of 2015, shows that she does not need alimony.
In the Matter of Wayne Sarette and Linda Sarette N.H. 2015
In the Matter of Fowler & Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 519 (2000).
In the Matter of Suzanne Brule and Robert Brule N.H. 2015
In the Matter of Fowler & Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 519 (2000).
In Re Dube 44 A.3d 556 N.H. 2012
“The primary purpose of alimony is rehabilitative,” In the Matter of Fowler and Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 520 (2000), and it “is designed to encourage the recipient to establish an independent source of income.” Id.
In Re Nassar 943 A.2d 740 N.H. 2008
he court considered the free housing provided by the husband’s parents in ascertaining the wife’s needs and the husband’s ability to pay alimony; and (5) the court was motivated by “animus.” In reviewing the husband’s claims, we will “sustain the findings and rulings of the trial court unless they are lacking in evidential support or tainted by error of law.” In the Matter of Fowler & Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 519 (2000).
In Re Cole 939 A.2d 750 N.H. 2007
In the Matter of Fowler and, Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 519 (2000).
In Re Hampers 911 A.2d 14 N.H. 2006
He also argues that no circumstances support a long-term alimony award, see In the Matter of Fowler & Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 520 (2000), and that the trial court “failed to explain the basis for the 13 year duration of the alimony award.” We disagree.
In re Harvey 899 A.2d 258 N.H. 2006
In the Matter of Fowler and Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 520 (2000).
In re Giacomini 842 A.2d 70 N.H. 2004
In the Matter of Fowler and Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 519 (2000).
In re Letendre 815 A.2d 938 N.H. 2002
In the Matter of Fowler and Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 519 (2000).
In re Sutton 813 A.2d 1193 N.H. 2002
In the Matter of Fowler and Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 519 (2000).
In re Lurvey 809 A.2d 783 N.H. 2002
In the Matter of Fowler and Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 519 (2000); see also State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard).
In re Crowe 804 A.2d 455 N.H. 2002
In the Matter of Fowler and Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 519 (2000).
In re Nyhan 802 A.2d 1183 N.H. 2002
In the Matter of Fowler and Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 519 (2000).
In re Gordon 797 A.2d 867 N.H. 2002
In the Matter of Fowler and Foioler, 145 N.H. 516, 519 (2000).
In re Levreault 798 A.2d 581 N.H. 2002
In the Matter of Fowler and Fowler, 145 N.H. 516, 519 (2000).

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by