Resolution of this argument requires us to engage in statutory interpretation, and, therefore, our review is de novo. See In the Matter of Doherty & Doherty, 168 N.H. 694, 697, 137 A.3d 393 (2016). We are the final arbiter of the legislature's intent as expressed in the words of the statute considered as a whole.
[¶10] To be deemed "gross income," however, even specifically enumerated sources of income must be available to the obligor parent for payment of child support. See In the Matter of Doherty & Doherty, 168 N.H. 694, 700 (2016). When determining whether funds are available for child support purposes, the critical inquiry is whether the obligor actually received the funds.
Therefore, we vacate the decision of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See In the Matter of Doherty & Doherty, 168 N.H. 694, 700, 137 A.3d 393 (2016). We note that the petitioner also claims that, after the trial court issued the alimony order, the respondent obtained new employment.
Because the trial court's fixture analysis impacted its valuation of the property, we vacate the trial court's determination of value, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. See In the Matter of Doherty and Doherty, 168 N.H. 694, 700, 137 A.3d 393 (2016). Reversed in part; vacated in part; and remanded.