Inheritance and Property Division

In a recent divorce case, significant legal issues arose regarding the distribution of marital property and child support obligations. The Wife filed for divorce in September 2017, with the Husband filing a cross-petition shortly thereafter. The court issued a final decree in November 2019, after which both parties filed motions for reconsideration.

Facts of the Case:

• The Husband and Wife were married in 2002. During their marriage, the Husband managed the family business, which included ownership of real property where the business operates.
• The trial court found that the Husband withdrew approximately $64,098 from an investment account to pay his legal fees during the divorce, while the Wife withdrew about $53,259 from her accounts for similar purposes.
• The trial court determined the Husband’s child support obligation based on a calculated income of $9,718 per month, allowing for an escalation clause that would adjust support obligations if his income increased.
• The final decree awarded the Wife the marital home but stated she would be responsible for its associated expenses, including property taxes.

Unequal Distribution of Property:

One of the most contentious aspects of this case was the unequal distribution of the marital estate. The trial court awarded the Husband 55% of the marital assets, while the Wife received 45%. Several key factors contributed to this decision:

Inherited Assets:

• A primary reason for the unequal division was the Husband’s inherited assets, which included the family business and the real property associated with it. The trial court emphasized that these assets had been in the Husband’s family for nearly 100 years, significantly contributing to the family’s financial stability.

Contribution to Marital Lifestyle:

• The court recognized that these inherited assets supported not only the Husband’s livelihood but also the overall marital lifestyle. The income generated from these assets was a crucial part of the family’s economic well-being, influencing the court’s perspective on property division.

Legal Framework:

• New Hampshire law (RSA 458:16-a) allows for unequal property distribution if a court finds that equal division would not be appropriate or equitable. The trial court explicitly noted the inherited nature of the Husband’s assets as a basis for awarding him a larger share.

Judicial Discretion:

• The trial court exercised its discretion, concluding that the unique characteristics of the Husband’s inherited assets justified a deviation from a 50-50 split. The court noted that the properties were not just marital assets but also family legacies.

Conclusion

The unequal distribution of property in this case highlights the complexities involved in asset division during divorce proceedings, particularly when inherited wealth is a factor. The court’s decision reflects New Hampshire’s legal standards that allow for unequal distributions based on asset nature and their impact on marital lifestyle. This case serves as a crucial reminder of how courts assess property division in light of the unique circumstances surrounding each marriage, particularly in cases involving family-owned businesses and inherited assets.

If you’re going through a divorce or have any questions, please contact us to schedule a consultation.