vIn the Matter of Michelle Chirco and Anthony Chirco

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

vIn the Matter of Michelle Chirco and Anthony Chirco

DecidedSeptember 14, 2018

Docket2017-0604

StatusUnpublished

This text of vIn the Matter of Michelle Chirco and Anthony Chirco (vIn the Matter of Michelle Chirco and Anthony Chirco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

vIn the Matter of Michelle Chirco and Anthony Chirco, (N.H. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2017-0604, In the Matter of Michelle Chirco and Anthony Chirco, the court on September 14, 2018, issued the following order:

Having considered the respondent’s brief and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm in part and vacate in part.

The respondent, Anthony Chirco, appeals an order of the Circuit Court (Cross, Referee, approved by Stephen, J.) denying a petition for contempt filed by the petitioner, Michelle Chirco, but modifying, sua sponte, his child support obligation. He challenges the trial court’s decision to modify child support, arguing, in part, that absent prior notice that the court might modify support, the modification violated due process under the State Constitution. We agree.

“The core of due process is the right to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” Lachance v. Erickson, 522 U.S. 262, 266 (1998); see Petition of Bagley, 128 N.H. 275, 286 (1986) (“Due process requires notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”). Here, the petitioner did not request modification of child support, and at no point prior to issuing its order did the trial court put the respondent on notice that it might modify his child support obligation. Thus, the respondent had no reason to anticipate that the court would modify his child support obligation so that he might present relevant evidence and argument on the matter. See Blagbrough v. Town of Wilton, 145 N.H. 118, 125 (2000); Morphy v. Morphy, 112 N.H. 507, 510 (1972). Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order to the extent that it modified the respondent’s child support obligation under the October 27, 2016 uniform support order, and to the extent that it modified the parties’ rights and obligations with respect to their children’s extracurricular activities. In all other respects, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; and vacated in part.

Lynn, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox, Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

SUPREME COURT

In Case No. 2017-0604, In the Matter of Michelle Chirco and Anthony Chirco, the court on September 14, 2018, issued the following order:

Having considered the respondent’s brief and the record submitted on appeal, we conclude that oral argument is unnecessary in this case. See Sup. Ct. R. 18(1). We affirm in part and vacate in part.

The respondent, Anthony Chirco, appeals an order of the Circuit Court (Cross, Referee, approved by Stephen, J.) denying a petition for contempt filed by the petitioner, Michelle Chirco, but modifying, sua sponte, his child support obligation. He challenges the trial court’s decision to modify child support, arguing, in part, that absent prior notice that the court might modify support, the modification violated due process under the State Constitution. We agree.

“The core of due process is the right to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” Lachance v. Erickson, 522 U.S. 262, 266 (1998); see Petition of Bagley, 128 N.H. 275, 286 (1986) (“Due process requires notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.”). Here, the petitioner did not request modification of child support, and at no point prior to issuing its order did the trial court put the respondent on notice that it might modify his child support obligation. Thus, the respondent had no reason to anticipate that the court would modify his child support obligation so that he might present relevant evidence and argument on the matter. See Blagbrough v. Town of Wilton, 145 N.H. 118, 125 (2000); Morphy v. Morphy, 112 N.H. 507, 510 (1972). Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order to the extent that it modified the respondent’s child support obligation under the October 27, 2016 uniform support order, and to the extent that it modified the parties’ rights and obligations with respect to their children’s extracurricular activities. In all other respects, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; and vacated in part.

Lynn, C.J., and Hicks, Bassett, Hantz Marconi, and Donovan, JJ., concurred.

Eileen Fox, Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

vIn the Matter of Michelle Chirco and Anthony Chirco, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vin-the-matter-of-michelle-chirco-and-anthony-chirco-nh-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack