Reaffirming the Renewal Standard for Alimony: Renewal Versus Modification in In the Matter of Taylor

Introduction

In its April 16, 2025 order in In the Matter of Christopher Taylor and Therese Taylor (No. 2023-0443), the Supreme Court of New Hampshire addressed the proper standard for renewing versus modifying spousal support awards. Christopher Taylor appealed the Circuit Court’s renewal of alimony at $3,000 per month through January 1, 2033. The respondent, Therese Taylor, disabled since 2013, sought continued support to meet her basic needs. The trial court found that Taylor had willfully underreported his income for years, vacated prior support orders, recalculated arrearages, and extended alimony. On appeal, Taylor challenged only the alimony renewal or modification standard. The Supreme Court affirmed, clarifying the different burdens of proof for renewal and modification and underscoring the trial court’s broad discretion in alimony matters.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s renewal of alimony at $3,000 per month until January 1, 2033.
It held that the trial court correctly treated the respondent’s motion as one for renewal, not modification, applying the lower burden of proof established in In the Matter of Lyon & Lyon, 166 N.H. 315 (2014).
The Court reaffirmed that renewal requires the party in whose favor the order runs to show “justice requires” an extension, whereas modification requires proof of a substantial change in circumstances (Laflamme v. Laflamme, 144 N.H. 524 (1999)).
The Court upheld the trial court’s factual findings—particularly the willful concealment of income and the imputation of earning capacity—under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard (In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769 (2008)).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

In the Matter of Nassar & Nassar, 156 N.H. 769 (2008): Established that alimony awards are reviewed for abuse of discretion and that trial courts have broad latitude in weighing need, ability to pay, and marital standard of living.
In the Matter of Lyon & Lyon, 166 N.H. 315 (2014): Defined the renewal standard, placing the burden on the party in whose favor the existing order runs to show that justice requires renewal or extension of alimony.
Laflamme v. Laflamme, 144 N.H. 524 (1999): Articulated the modification standard, requiring proof of a substantial change in circumstances since the original award.
In the Matter of Hoyt & Hoyt, 171 N.H. 373 (2018): Rejected the argument that the modification standard applies to alimony renewals, reaffirming the Lyon renewal standard.

Legal Reasoning

The Court began by observing that trial courts enjoy broad discretion in awarding and renewing alimony, subject to deferential appellate review. It then addressed the appellant’s argument that the trial court used the renewal standard when it should have applied the modification standard. Relying on Hoyt & Hoyt, the Court reiterated that:

Renewal of an expired alimony award invokes the Lyon standard: the beneficiary must show that “justice requires a renewal or extension” of support, considering all circumstances at the time of renewal.
Modification of an extant support order requires proof of a substantial change in circumstances that renders the original support amount unfair or improper (the Laflamme standard).

The Court found that the trial court correctly treated the respondent’s motion as one for renewal. On the merits, the trial court’s findings—that the respondent demonstrated a need of $4,600 per month, that Taylor had the ability to pay $3,000 per month, and that he willfully concealed income—were grounded in credible evidence, including pay stubs, hearing testimony, and a calculation of imputed income at $11,250 gross per month. The Court concluded that the trial court did not unsustainably exercise its discretion by extending alimony beyond the duration of the marriage or the payor’s retirement age, particularly given the respondent’s disability and inability to become self-supporting.

Impact

This decision solidifies New Hampshire’s jurisprudence on alimony renewals versus modifications by:

Reemphasizing that parties seeking renewal face a lower burden of proof than those seeking modification.
Validating the broad discretion of trial courts to impute income when a party willfully conceals earnings.
Permitting courts to extend alimony beyond the length of the marriage or the payor’s retirement age when justice and need dictate, especially in cases involving disability.
Providing a clear roadmap for practitioners: motions labeled “renewal” will be judged under Lyon, while genuine modifications require demonstrating changed circumstances under Laflamme.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Renewal vs. Modification: Renewal continues an expired award under a “justice requires” test. Modification changes an existing award after proof of a substantial change in circumstances.
Imputed Income: When a payor voluntarily underreports or conceals earnings, courts can assign (impute) an income based on earning capacity or past earnings.
Marital Standard of Living: The level of comfort and spending during the marriage, used to gauge reasonable needs for alimony.
Abuse of Discretion: Appellate courts defer to trial courts’ factual findings and discretionary decisions unless no reasonable person could reach the same conclusion.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in In the Matter of Taylor reaffirms that the renewal standard for alimony in New Hampshire is distinct from the modification standard and remains the appropriate test when an award has expired. By upholding the trial court’s factual findings and discretionary decisions, the Court underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring justice for dependent spouses while preventing willful concealment of income by payors. This decision will guide practitioners and trial courts in structuring alimony proceedings, clarifying burdens of proof, and reinforcing the principle that alimony relief must be tailored to the needs of the spouse and the payor’s demonstrated ability to pay.