Deborah Dascenzo-Paul v. Brian Paul

Newport, New Hampshire family law lawyers represented the parties in a divorce.

In 2014, when Wife filed for divorce for irreconcilable differences, Husband was a psychiatry resident. Prior to the final hearing, the parties reached agreement on a parenting plan and a number of other disputed matters, but did not reach agreement on other issues, including Wife's request for alimony. The final hearing was held over two days, on August 2, 2016 and January 6, 2017.



At the end of the first day of the final hearing, Wife called the superintendent of the Newport School District to testify. The superintendent testified that Husband had provided to the school district documents that appeared to be court orders identifying Husband's town as the parties' son's legal residence for school purposes, but which included the forged signature of the presiding judge. The trial judge informed the parties that he would refer the matter to the county attorney.



* * *





Husband's counsel in the criminal matter was present on the second day of the final hearing, and he informed the trial court that Husband was negotiating with the county attorney's office regarding the charges to be brought and the proposed disposition. The parties proceeded by offers of proof at the second day of the hearing regarding the outstanding issues. Counsel for Wife argued that she had a substantial need for alimony given Wife's age, which was 58 at the time of the hearing, and her limited work history during the marriage. Counsel for Wife also argued that Husband had a greater ability to earn an income, given his degree, his age, which was 44 at the time of the hearing, and his employability. Counsel for Husband argued that the standard for making the determination about alimony is the current ability to pay based on the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. On March 30, 2017, the Trial Court (Yazinski, J.) issued a final divorce decree which, in relevant part, denied Wife's request for alimony.



In May 2017, Husband was charged with tampering with public records or information, see RSA 641:7 (2016), and unsworn falsification, see RSA 641:3 (Supp. 2023). He pleaded guilty to these charges, and, after completing his psychiatry residency in June 2017, Husband began serving a 60-day sentence. Within ten months of completing his sentence, Husband was hired as a fulltime staff psychiatrist, and in May 2018 he notified the court and Wife of his change of employment. Thereafter, Husband was ordered to pay $700 per week in child support.



On March 31, 2022, Wife filed a petition to change court order, in which she requested that the court award her alimony "based upon a substantial change in circumstances." Following a hearing on Husband's motion to dismiss the petition, the trial court issued an order stating, in part, that "[a]s no alimony order was ever issued, it appears that this request is not truly a modification request but rather a request for establishment of alimony." In subsequent pleadings, Wife argued that her petition was an action to request alimony, rather than a request for modification of a prior order.

Affirmed



Dascenzo-Paul v. Paul, 2023-0128 (N.H. Sep 04, 2024)