In the Matter of Edward Kissell, Jr. and Martha Kissell ( 2016 )

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPREME COURT
In Case No. 2014-0825, In the Matter of Edward Kissell, Jr.
and Martha Kissell, the court on March 16, 2016, issued the
following order:
Having considered the brief, memorandum of law, reply brief, and record
submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this
case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm.
The respondent, Martha Mullen Kissell (wife), appeals a final decree of
the Circuit Court (Geiger, M., approved by Kelly, J.) in her divorce from the
petitioner, Edward J. Kissell, Jr. (husband), raising numerous challenges to the
court’s decree.
The trial court granted the parties a divorce based upon irreconcilable
differences and awarded the husband primary residential responsibility and
sole decision-making responsibility for the parties’ children. The court denied
the wife’s request for alimony based upon findings that the husband does not
have the ability to pay alimony and that the wife is able to support herself.
The court ordered the wife to pay $50 in child support per month, to be
deducted from the husband’s temporary alimony arrearage until the arrearage
is paid. The court awarded the husband one of the two apartment buildings he
owned prior to the marriage, but otherwise divided the marital estate
approximately equally. The court divided the husband’s pension according to
the Hodgins formula. See Hodgins v. Hodgins, 126 N.H. 711, 715-16 (1985)
(superseded on other grounds by RSA 458:16-a, I (2004)).
As the appealing party, the wife has the burden of demonstrating
reversible error. Gallo v. Traina, 166 N.H. 737, 740 (2014). Based upon our
review of the trial court’s well-reasoned decree, the wife’s challenges to it, the
relevant law, and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that the wife
has not demonstrated reversible error. See id.The wife also asserts that the marital master demonstrated bias against
her. Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that no reasonable
person would have questioned the master’s impartiality and that no factors
were present that would have per se disqualified the master from participating
in this case. See State v. Bader, 148 N.H. 265, 268-71 (2002).
Affirmed.
Dalianis, C.J., and Hicks, Conboy, Lynn, and Bassett, JJ., concurred.
Eileen Fox,
Clerk
2