From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.
In re Arvenitis
New Hampshire Supreme Court
886 A.2d 1025 (2005)
- Written by Brittany Frankel, JD
Facts
Charles Arventis (defendant) and Carolyn Arventis (plaintiff) divorced in 1992 when they were in their fifties. The stipulated divorce decree required Charles to pay Carolyn $500 per week in alimony. Twelve years later, in 2006, Charles petitioned the court for termination of his alimony obligation, because he wished to retire. The parties’ stipulation was silent as to retirement. The trial court denied Charles’s request for modification. The trial court found that Charles had not shown a substantial change in circumstances, because Charles’s retirement was foreseeable at the time the divorce decree was entered. Charles appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nadeau, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
