LaFlamme v. LaFlamme

6 Citing cases

  1. In re Doherty

    168 N.H. 694 (N.H. 2016)   Cited 4 times

    C. Modification of Alimony Relying primarily upon our decision in Laflamme v. Laflamme, 144 N.H. 524, 744 A.2d 1116 (1999), Wife next argues that the trial court erred by revisiting Husband's alimony obligation because there was not a "substantial or unforeseen change in circumstances." Wife claims that the "only substantial and unforeseen change in circumstances between the parties" has been her decrease in monthly income, which, she argues, is not sufficient to justify reexamining Husband's alimony obligation.

  2. In the Matter of Arvenitis Arvenitis

    152 N.H. 653 (N.H. 2005)   Cited 7 times
    Explaining that court must take into account all circumstances of parties, including terms of stipulations

    We review an order on a motion to modify a support obligation for an unsustainable exercise of discretion. See Laflamme v. Laflamme, 144 N.H. 524, 527 (1999); cf. State v. Lambert, 147 N.H. 295, 296 (2001) (explaining unsustainable exercise of discretion standard). The defendant argues that the trial court erred because it misread the crossed-out language — the modifications to the stipulation referred to by the trial court did not reduce the amount of alimony from $575 to $500 per week, but rather increased it from $375 to $500 per week. He then contends that the trial court's "finding that [the plaintiff] gave up an increased amount of alimony, as well as her ability to seek an increase in alimony in return for alimony for life is simply wrong."

  3. In re Lyon

    166 N.H. 315 (N.H. 2014)   Cited 5 times

    The Husband moved for summary judgment, arguing that the Wife's petition failed to establish that there was an unanticipated or unforeseeable substantial change of circumstances that warranted extending the existing alimony order for another three years. SeeLaflamme v. Laflamme, 144 N.H. 524, 527–29, 744 A.2d 1116 (1999). Although the Wife timely objected to the Husband's motion, she failed to support her pleading with the requisite affidavits or other competent evidence "showing specifically and clearly reasonable grounds for believing that contradictory evidence can be presented at trial."

  4. In re Hoyt

    171 N.H. 373 (N.H. 2018)   Cited 2 times

    It is true that a party seeking "[t]o obtain an order modifying a support obligation ... must show that a substantial change in circumstances has arisen since the initial award, making the current support amount either improper or unfair." Laflamme v. Laflamme, 144 N.H. 524, 527, 744 A.2d 1116 (1999). However, this standard does not apply to a request to renew an expired award, which is what the respondent sought here.

  5. In the Matter of Canaway Canaway

    161 N.H. 286 (N.H. 2010)   Cited 5 times
    Observing that trial court must inquire into changed circumstances of both parties

    " The party requesting an alimony modification must show "that a substantial change in circumstances has arisen since the initial award, making the current [alimony] amount either improper or unfair." Laflamme v. Laflamme, 144 N.H. 624, 627 (1999) (quotation omitted). "Changes to a party's condition that are both anticipated and foreseeable at the time of the decree cannot rise to the level of a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant modification of an alimony award.

  6. In the Matter of Lurvey and Lurvey

    809 A.2d 783 (N.H. 2002)   Cited 1 times

    We agree with the respondent that Noddin does not fully articulate the standard for modification of an alimony award. In Laflamme v. Laflamme, 144 N.H. 524, 527 (1999), we held that a trial court cannot modify an award unless the petitioner shows "that a substantial change in circumstances has arisen since the initial award, making the current support amount either improper or unfair." LaFlamme further explained that "[c]hanges to a party's condition that are both anticipated and foreseeable at the time of the decree cannot rise to the level of a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to warrant modification of an alimony award.