Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Vogel v. Vogel

Virginia A. Vogel v. Edward P. Vogel

137 N.H. 321 · 627 A.2d 595

Decided June 30, 1993

Good LawGood law: 65 citing cases carry treatments with no negative treatment.

Download PDF

SummaryHoldingsLater treatmentOpinion of the Court

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Hampshire affirmed two consolidated superior court rulings in this divorce matter. It rejected the defendant's due process challenge to a decree provision confining the parties to a fifty-mile radius of Concord because the trial court simply adopted the identical provision the defendant himself had proposed. It also affirmed the finding that the defendant was in contempt for failing to comply with child support orders, concluding his arguments were without merit. In passing, the court noted that New Hampshire provides free child support enforcement services to all applicants regardless of financial status.

Holdings

  • Due process challenge to the fifty-mile-radius geographic restraint in the divorce decree.. The restraint does not violate due process because the trial court's order merely imposed the very provision the defendant himself proposed in his own proposed decree, leaving him no grounds to complain on appeal. 137 N.H. at 321
  • Contempt adjudication for failure to comply with child support orders.. The contempt finding stands; the defendant's arguments against it are, under the circumstances of the case, without merit and do not warrant further discussion. 137 N.H. at 322

Written by LawDiver's case analysis.

How later courts treated this case

425 opinions cite this case

  • Cited

    In the Matter of Nat King Rosa and Jennifer Rosa. We have considered the respondent’s remaining arguments, and we conclude that they do not require further discussion.

  • Cited

    Appeal of Comm’r of N.H. Dep’t of Labor, 2026 N.H. 34. We have considered the Insurer’s remaining arguments, and we conclude that they do not require further discussion.

  • Cited

    Appeal of Comm’r of N.H. Dep’t of Labor, 2026 N.H. 34. We have considered the Insurer’s remaining arguments, and we conclude that they do not require further discussion.

  • Cited

    Appeal of Comm'r of N.H. Dep't of Labor, 2026 N.H. 34. We have considered the Insurer’s remaining arguments, and we conclude that they do not require further discussion.

  • Cited

    J&C Properties v. Rayster Realty, 2026 N.H. 12. We have considered these remaining arguments and have concluded that they do not require further discussion.

See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.

In this case

Opinion of the Court

Memorandum Opinion

Batchelder, J.

In these consolidated appeals, the defendant, Edward P. Vogel, challenges a provision of the November 6, 1989, divorce decree issued by the Superior Court (Dalianis, J.) requiring the parties to remain within a fifty-mile radius of Concord unless a move outside this radius is approved by the other party or the court, and a later finding by the Superior Court (Murphy, J.) that defendant was in contempt for failing to comply with court orders relative to child support. We affirm.

We note in passing that, with respect to support enforcement issues, the plaintiff was represented in the trial court by attorneys from the New Hampshire Division of Human Services Office of Child Support Enforcement Services, and in this court by attorneys from the Office of the Attorney General. Pursuant to applicable federal regulations, the State provides support enforcement services to all individuals who apply, regardless of their financial status. See 45 C.F.R. §§ 302.33, 303.6 (1992). The State has informed the court that there are currently over 21,000 recipients of free child support enforcement services who do not receive any type of public assistance. *322Undoubtedly, many others are eligible for such services, but are simply unaware of their existence and availability.

Turning to the issues presented in this appeal, we begin with the defendant’s argument that the restraint upon his right to move beyond fifty miles from Concord violates due process under the Federal and State Constitutions. The trial court’s order, however, adopts a proposal made by the defendant himself. The defendant’s proposed decree contains the following provision:

“As it is important that the children remain available to both parents, the parties agree to remain within a 50 mile radius of Concord, N.H. unless a move beyond is approved by the other party or the court.”

The trial court’s order does no more than impose the very provision that the defendant proposed. Under these circumstances, we see no grounds for the defendant to complain on appeal about the imposition of a condition that he himself proposed.

The defendant raises several arguments with respect to the trial court’s order holding him in contempt. After review of the briefs and oral arguments of the parties and the record on appeal, the court concludes that these arguments are, under the circumstances of this case, without merit, and do not warrant further discussion. Accordingly, the trial court’s orders on appeal are affirmed. In light of our decision, the motions for partial remand pending before this court are moot.

Affirmed.

All concurred.

Research the next case the same way

Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.

  • Search every way lawyers do

    Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.

  • See what still holds

    Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.

  • Check a brief before you file

    CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.

  • Use it where you work

    The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.

Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders

Related landmark cases

All landmark cases·Browse by topic