In the Matter of Susan Spenard and David Spenard was decided on October 17, 2014
Husband and Wife married in 1998. During the marriage the Husband worked in real estate and owned several businesses and the Wife worked as an entertainer. Before the parties’ divorce decree was issued, the Husband sold a promissory note that he had failed to disclose on his financial affidavit. During the divorce trial, the Wife argued that she could no longer work at all due to medical issues. She failed to present any expert testimony to back up her claim, however, and the Court found that she was voluntarily unemployed. The Wife filed a Motion to Reconsider and sought to present new evidence of her medical issues. The Court denied her Motion.
The Wife appealed on three grounds. First, the Wife argued that RSA 458-C:2 requires an express finding of under or unemployment when presented with evidence supporting such a claim. Second, she argued that the lower Court erred in refusing to reopen her case based on her newly discovered medical evidence supporting her claim that she cannot work. Third, the Wife argued that the Husband’s promissory notes were marital property, and, therefore, subject to equitable distribution.
First, the Court held that whether or not a party is voluntarily under or unemployed is a question of fact for the fact-finder, and RSA 458-C:2 does not require an express finding of voluntary under or unemployment when presented with evidence of such a claim. Second, the Court held that a party who seeks to reopen a case to submit new evidence must demonstrate that s/he was not at fault for failing to present such evidence at the hearing. Mere difficulty or financial expense of obtaining such evidence is not sufficient to overcome this burden. Third, the Court held that promissory notes are marital property and thus must be listed on financial affidavits and are subject to equitable distribution.