In re Arvenitis
152 N.H. 653, 886 A.2d 1025, 2005 N.H. LEXIS 151 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Voluntary retirement may constitute a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant modification of an alimony award, unless the retirement was both actually anticipated and foreseeable at the time of the divorce decree. To determine if a voluntary retirement qualifies as such a change, courts must assess its reasonableness by considering factors including the payor's age, health, motivation, and the typical retirement age for their profession.
Facts:
- Carolyn Arvenitis and Charles Arvenitis were divorced in March 1992.
- Their stipulated divorce decree required Charles to pay Carolyn $500 per week in alimony for her support.
- The final stipulation was silent on the issue of retirement or how it might affect the alimony obligation.
- During negotiations, language that would have limited the alimony's duration was crossed out.
- In 2004, twelve years after the divorce, Charles, approaching his sixty-third birthday, planned to retire from his work.
Procedural Posture:
- In April 2004, Charles Arvenitis petitioned the Superior Court, a trial-level court, to modify the 1992 divorce decree and terminate his alimony obligation to Carolyn Arvenitis.
- The Superior Court denied the petition, finding that Charles's planned retirement was a foreseeable event and thus did not constitute a substantial change in circumstances.
- Charles Arvenitis (appellant) appealed the Superior Court's decision to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, the state's highest court, with Carolyn Arvenitis as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party's voluntary retirement, which was not explicitly addressed in a divorce stipulation, constitute a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant modification of an alimony award, even if retirement is a generally foreseeable life event?
Opinions:
Majority - Nadeau, J.
Yes. A party's voluntary retirement can constitute a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant modification of an alimony award. The trial court erred by holding that foreseeability alone prevents voluntary retirement from being considered a substantial change in circumstances. The correct standard requires that a change be both anticipated and foreseeable at the time of the decree to be disqualified from consideration. Whether a retirement was 'actually anticipated' is a factual question that requires an evidentiary hearing, which the trial court failed to conduct. Simply because retirement is a general possibility does not mean it was actually anticipated by the parties twelve years prior when the decree was signed. The court adopts a reasonableness test for voluntary retirement, requiring consideration of the payor's age, health, motivation, and profession's standard retirement age, while also ensuring the choice to retire does not place the recipient spouse in peril of poverty.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the standard for modifying alimony in New Hampshire based on voluntary retirement. It distinguishes between a generally 'foreseeable' event and one that was 'actually anticipated,' raising the bar for precluding modification and requiring a factual inquiry into the parties' expectations at the time of the divorce. By adopting a multi-factor 'reasonableness' test for retirement, the court provides lower courts with a structured framework that balances the payor's right to retire against the payee's need for continued support. This precedent will guide future litigation by preventing trial courts from summarily dismissing modification petitions based on foreseeability alone.
