Ford v. Ford

9 Citing cases

  1. Buckner v. Buckner

    120 N.H. 402 (N.H. 1980)   Cited 8 times

    As we have repeatedly emphasized, discretion of the court in this area is broad and we will not substitute our judgment for that of the master or the trial court. Azzi v. Azzi, 118 N.H. 653, 392 A.2d 148 (1978); Ames v. Ames, 117 N.H. 554, 374 A.2d 1181 (1977); Ford v. Ford, 112 N.H. 270, 293 A.2d 605 (1972). The fact that the plaintiff is wealthy and that valuable properties are involved does not alter the standard of review.

  2. Ames v. Ames

    117 N.H. 554 (N.H. 1977)   Cited 5 times

    Mr. Ames recognizes that the determination as to the amount of alimony to be awarded a spouse is largely within the trial court's discretion. Ford v. Ford, 112 N.H. 270, 293 A.2d 605 (1972); Madsen v. Madsen, 109 N.H. 457, 255 A.2d 604 (1969). He argues, however, that under the facts of this case, the master's award amounts to an abuse of that discretion.

  3. Murphy v. Murphy

    366 A.2d 479 (N.H. 1976)   Cited 14 times

    We are not prepared to hold that the master abused his discretion in not awarding the house and furniture to the plaintiff in this case. However, the alimony order in this case was not merely "paltry and penurious" (Ford v. Ford, 112 N.H. 270, 272, 293 A.2d 605, 607 (1972)) but in our opinion unwarranted by the evidence. It is essential that the amount of alimony awarded be sufficient to cover the wife's needs, within the limits of the husband's ability to pay.

  4. Twomey v. Twomey

    351 A.2d 66 (N.H. 1976)   Cited 3 times

    While the writer of this opinion would set aside the award of the Moultonboro house to the wife as an abuse of discretion the majority of the court are of the opinion that on the basis of the expressed purpose of the award and the cancellation of the arrearage, the evidence comes within the broad discretion of the trial court in such matters. Weik v. Weik, 114 N.H. 287, 319 A.2d 295 (1974); Labrie v. Labrie, 113 N.H. 255, 305 A.2d 687 (1973); see Ford v. Ford, 112 N.H. 270, 293 A.2d 605 (1972). We cannot accept the argument of the husband that the master did not consider the husband's ability to pay during the period his motion to modify was pending and unheard.

  5. Popik v. Popik

    115 N.H. 668 (N.H. 1975)   Cited 4 times

    The defendant had a duty to support his wife and children during the period of separation, notwithstanding the absence of a court order. See Ford v. Ford, 112 N.H. 270, 293 A.2d 605 (1972). The defendant did not breach this duty by not making payments, because the wife had ample resources available to her from the family funds.

  6. Mangin v. Mangin

    343 A.2d 636 (N.H. 1975)   Cited 7 times

    Collette v. Collette, 108 N.H. 469, 470, 238 A.2d 598, 599 (1968). See also Ford v. Ford, 112 N.H. 270, 293 A.2d 605 (1972). In the present case it is clear that the court's conclusions were well within the proper bounds.

  7. Kent v. Kent

    320 A.2d 645 (N.H. 1974)   Cited 1 times

    We believe that the court could have properly taken these facts into account in making its decree and find no difficulty in sustaining its order because the incomes contributed by the plaintiff greatly exceed the value of the Jimtown Road property. See Weik v. Weik, 114 N.H. 287, 319 A.2d 295 (1974); Ford v. Ford, 112 N.H. 270, 272, 293 A.2d 605, 606-07 (1972); H. Clark, Jr., The Law of Domestic Relations 14.8 (1968). The defendant has also objected to the decree as being too indefinite to render orderly compliance.

  8. Weik v. Weik

    319 A.2d 295 (N.H. 1974)   Cited 4 times
    In Weik v. Weik, 114 N.H. 287, 288, 319 A.2d 295, 296 (1974), we refused to order the parties' home to be sold and the proceeds divided.

    We find no abuse of discretion in this property division and we continue to refuse to limit the trial court's discretion with absolute formulas for division of property. Ford v. Ford, 112 N.H. 270, 293 A.2d 605 (1972); Comer v. Comer, 110 N.H. 505, 272 A.2d 586 (1970). Relevant factors which the court could properly consider support the award of the family home to the plaintiff.

  9. Del Pozzo v. Del Pozzo

    309 A.2d 151 (N.H. 1973)   Cited 19 times

    It is settled in this State that a large measure of discretion must reside in the trial court in this area. See Ford v. Ford, 112 N.H. 270, 272, 293 A.2d 605, 606 (1972). This court has not restricted or delimited this discretion when exercised within proper bounds.