2007-565, DANIEL DAINE v. LISA DAINE

rubbish removal, television and internet. mortgage, taxes and all utilities, including electricity, heating, telephone, in the marital residence. During that time, the plaintiff continued to pay the separation but before the final divorce decree was issued, the defendant lived

by the Littleton Family Division. During the six-month period after their The Daines divorced on February 2, 2003, pursuant to an order issued

decree. We vacate and dismiss. incurred between the time of the filing of a petition for divorce and the final approximately $3,377.00 to cover certain household expenses that were Littleton District Court (Cyr, J.) awarding the plaintiff, Daniel Daine, BRODERICK, C.J. The defendant, Lisa Daine, appeals an order of the

Lisa Daine, by brief, pro se.

to press. Errors may be reported by E-mail at the following address: Daniel Daine, by brief, pro se.

editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes No. 2007-565 Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any Littleton District Court Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New ___________________________

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme. a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00

well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule p. 2 22 as 2

(citations omitted). the original cause of action.” for the first time on appeal, and even if they are not raised by the parties.” Id. omitted). “Thus, we may address jurisdictional issues even if they are raised already exist.” State v. Polk, 154 N.H. 59, 59 ( p. 2 2006) (quotation and brackets time in the proceedings because it cannot be conferred where it does not 479, 479 (1966). “The issue of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any the judicial branch family division regarding divorce matters. matters over which it has no jurisdiction.” In re Matheisel’s Appeal, 107 N.H. “[A] court lacks power to hear or determine a case concerning subject

necessary, and . . . award costs as justice may require,” RSA 458:14 ( p. 2 2004). “revise and modify any order made by it, . . . make such new orders as may be (quotation omitted). After granting a divorce, the court retains jurisdiction to

continuing one with respect to all subsequent proceedings which arise out of II, art. 76. “The law is well settled that jurisdiction in divorce proceedings is a court until the legislature shall by law make other provision.” N.H. CONST. pt. of marriage, divorce and alimony . . . shall be heard and tried by the superior RSA 490-D: p. 2 2, I. Accordingly, in this state, original jurisdiction is granted to procedurally jurisdiction was previously exercised in the superior . . . court[ ].” “exclusively exercised through the judicial branch family division as alimony, custody of children, support, and to establish paternity,” are that jurisdiction over, inter alia, “[p]etitions for divorce, nullity of marriage, the judicial branch family division. See RSA 490-D:1. The statute provides different reasons. Pursuant to RSA chapter 490-D (Supp. 2007), the legislature established agree that the case did not belong in the Littleton District Court, but for should have precluded this case from being heard in Small Claims Court.” We made and that the “Doctrine of Res Judicata, specifically collateral estoppel,

N.H. 193, 195 (1967). As the New Hampshire Constitution states, “All causes has only such power in that field as is granted by statute. Taylor v. Taylor, 108 Rockwood, 105 N.H. 1 p. 2 29, 130 (1963). Because divorce is statutory, the court statutory.” Walker v. Walker, 119 N.H. 551, 553 (1979); see Rockwood v. “The court’s authority in matters of marriage and divorce is strictly

decree makes it clear that the plaintiff was solely responsible for the payments The defendant appeals, arguing that the plain language of the final divorce a hearing, the court awarded the plaintiff $ p. 3 3,317.61 plus his costs of $60.00. Court to recover amounts he paid during the pre-divorce separation. Following In p. 2 2007, the plaintiff brought a small claims action in Littleton District 3

vacate the district court’s order and dismiss the underlying action. district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Therefore, we Family Division, which retains continuing jurisdiction. We conclude that the

appellate tribunal acquires no jurisdiction of the merits upon appeal.” DALIANIS, DUGGAN, GALWAY and HICKS, JJ., concurred. original tribunal over the subject-matter, the judgment is void, and the

allocation of debt related to the marital homestead, was issued by the Littleton The parties’ divorce decree, which contains provisions regarding

v. Franconia, 7 p. 3 3 N.H. 194, 196 (1905).

N.H. 29 p. 3 3, 293 (1902). “Where the objection goes to the jurisdiction of the

appears that a court has no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the suit, the “Consent cannot confer jurisdiction where none exists. Whenever it