Divorce Case Example

NH Divorce Lawyer

In order to help you better understand the legal process surrounding Divorce in New Hampshire, below is a sample fact pattern and case evaluation.

This is a hypothetical case and not based on a specific client.

Facts

John and Jane were married 7 years ago. They have a 5-year-old son named James. In November 2010, the parties separated informally (without court involvement). When they separated, they moved out of the marital home located in Manchester. They each now rent their own apartment in the Manchester area and they had an informal parenting agreement since November 2010. John works for a home security company and has historically made about $50,000/year. Jane has worked part-time and is about a year away from becoming a registered nurse. John has a 401(k) through work with a current value of about $80,000. He also has a pension through a previous employer which he earned before the marriage. Jane has a 403(b) that’s worth about $50,000. Jane’s mother died in February 2011, and Jane inherited about $30,000.

Analysis

The marriage was not quite long-term, but not truly short term either. In this case, John’s pension, earned prior to the marriage, is awarded to him. However, the 401(k) and 403(b) will be treated differently. These accounts are part of the marital estate, and subject to division, regardless of when they accrued. Due to the relatively short-term nature of the marriage, the Court was not inclined to split those 50/50 in this case. To the extent there is any equity in the marital home, the court ordered a sale with proceeds and/or short-fall split. Jane’s $30,000 inheritance was awarded to her. Although it is part of the marital estate and subject to division, the fact she received it after the parties’ informal separation and so recently before the divorce resulted in the court awarding all or most to Jane. In addition, John’s 401(k) is worth about $30,000 more than Jane’s 403(b) and was an additional factor the court considered in awarding all of the $30,000 to Jane.

Alimony is based on one party’s need and the other’s ability to pay. Consequently, the court did not order alimony in this case because both parties are relatively financially independent. With regard to custody, there is a presumption that joint decision-making (legal custody) will be awarded unless there is a real concern with one of the parents – drug abuse, mental health issues, etc. In this case, there are no such concerns. The parties are awarded joint decision-making authority which will allow them to continue having input into the major decisions in the child’s life. The amount of child support is based on a formula. But as a general rule of thumb, it works out to be about 25%-45% of the obligor’s monthly income. The parties could agree to, or the court could order, shared residential responsibility – where the parties have the child 50% of the time, or close to it. In this case, although the informal (50/50) schedule the parties have had is not legally binding, as a practical matter, the court was not inclined to disrupt the schedule as it was working, the parties agreed, and was in James’ best interest.

Post-Divorce

Three years after John and Jane divorced; John lost his job with the home security company. He now works part-time from home and has very flexible hours. Jane has gone on to earn a masters degree in nursing and is now a nurse practitioner, making about $90,000/year. Because John’s schedule is flexible, and because Jane’s job is so much more demanding, James has been spending more time with John. The parties agree that shared parenting is no longer possible. John filed a motion to reopen the divorce. He modifies the parenting plan and is awarded primary residential responsibility. Jane pays John child support. Because the law does not allow it, John cannot change the property settlement. But because it has not yet been 5 years since the parties divorce, John filed a motion for an award of alimony because there has been such a substantial change of financial circumstances which were not anticipated.

Summary

Because the parties have agreed to a shared parenting arrangement, and because they are on relatively equal financial footing, this case was resolved by agreement, taking no more than 60 days from start to finish and costing as little as $1500, including the filing fee. If the parties did not agree on parenting, had disparate incomes, and/or assets, etc., the case may have been contested, taking years and costing thousands and thousands of dollars to resolve.