When people start thinking about divorce, they often focus on the obvious assets—the house, the bank accounts, maybe a retirement account they can log into and see a balance.
But one of the most valuable—and most misunderstood—assets in many New Hampshire divorces is something far less visible:
a pension.
Defined benefit plans, commonly referred to as pensions, don’t come with a clear dollar figure. You can’t just pull up a statement and see what they’re worth today. Instead, they represent a promise of future income. And because of that, figuring out how to divide them is often one of the more complex parts of a divorce.
Adding to that complexity, New Hampshire law in this area has evolved. A 2025 New Hampshire Supreme Court decision clarified how pensions—especially those with a premarital component—must be treated.
If you are dealing with a divorce where a pension is involved, it’s worth slowing down and really understanding how these assets work.
The Starting Point: How Property Is Divided in New Hampshire
New Hampshire follows what’s called an equitable distribution model. That means the court’s goal is to divide property in a way that is fair. Many cases start from the idea of a roughly equal division, but the final result depends on the circumstances.
One of the most important principles—and one that often surprises people—is that all property is subject to division.
That includes property acquired before the marriage, property acquired during the marriage, and both tangible and intangible assets. Retirement benefits, including pensions, fall squarely within that definition.
So when a pension is part of a divorce, the question is not whether it is included. It is. The real questions become how it is valued and how it is divided.
Why Pensions Are Different From Other Assets
A pension doesn’t behave like a 401(k) or an IRA.
With a 401(k), you can look at the balance and say, “This is what it’s worth today.” That makes division relatively straightforward.
A pension is different. It is based on future payments that depend on things like years of service, salary, and retirement age. In many cases, those benefits have not even begun yet.
So instead of dividing something concrete, the court is often dealing with something that is, at least in part, uncertain.
That uncertainty is what led New Hampshire courts to develop a specific approach to dividing pensions.
The Traditional Approach: The Hodgins Formula
For decades, New Hampshire courts have relied on a framework that came out of a case called Hodgins v. Hodgins.
The issue in that case was practical. How do you divide a pension that hasn’t matured yet and doesn’t have a reliable present value?
The solution was to defer the division.
Rather than assigning a dollar value at the time of divorce, the court can order that when the pension is eventually paid out, one spouse receives a percentage of each payment.
That percentage is calculated using a formula that looks at how much of the pension was earned during the marriage compared to the total time the employee worked toward the pension.
This approach has been widely used because it avoids trying to guess the future. Instead, it divides the benefit when it actually exists.
Where Things Became Complicated
Over time, the Hodgins formula started to be applied in a way that often excluded part of the pension from consideration.
Specifically, if a portion of the pension had been earned before the marriage, that portion was frequently treated as belonging entirely to the employee spouse.
On its face, that may seem intuitive. After all, that portion was earned before the relationship began.
But there was a problem.
New Hampshire’s property division statute—RSA 458:16-a—makes it clear that all property, regardless of when it was acquired, is subject to division.
That includes premarital property.
So there was a tension between how pensions were being handled in practice and what the statute actually said.
The 2025 Clarification: LeGault & LeGault
That tension was addressed directly in 2025 in In the Matter of LeGault & LeGault .
In that case, the husband had a pension that included both premarital and marital components. The trial court applied the traditional approach and did not divide—or offset—the premarital portion.
On appeal, the New Hampshire Supreme Court took a closer look at whether that approach was consistent with RSA 458:16-a.
The Court’s answer was clear:
The premarital portion of a pension cannot be excluded from the marital estate.
That does not mean the premarital portion must be split equally. But it does mean the court must consider it as part of the overall division.
What Actually Changed—and What Didn’t
The LeGault decision didn’t overturn everything that came before it. The Hodgins formula is still very much part of New Hampshire law.
But the Court clarified how it should be used.
If a pension was earned entirely during the marriage, the Hodgins approach works as it always has.
If a pension includes a premarital component, however, the analysis has to be broader.
The court can still use the Hodgins formula to divide the marital portion of the pension. But it cannot ignore the premarital portion. Instead, it must consider that portion as part of the overall property division.
In some cases, that premarital portion may be awarded entirely to the employee spouse. In others, it may be offset with different assets. The key point is that it must be part of the equation.
Why This Matters in Real Cases
This shift matters because pensions are often among the largest assets in a divorce.
In some cases, the value of a pension exceeds the value of the marital home or retirement accounts with visible balances.
If a significant portion of that pension was previously treated as “off limits,” that could dramatically affect the outcome of a case.
Now, courts are required to take a more complete view.
That doesn’t eliminate discretion, but it does ensure that all components of the pension are considered.
The Valuation Challenge
Even once it is clear that the entire pension must be considered, another major issue remains:
What is it worth?
This is where things can get complicated.
Sometimes, the court will stick with the deferred distribution approach, dividing the pension when it is eventually paid. This avoids having to assign a present-day value.
Other times, there may be an effort to determine the present value of the pension and offset it with other assets. That approach can allow for a cleaner break, but it requires careful analysis.
You are no longer just dealing with a number. You are dealing with projections—future income, life expectancy, and assumptions about retirement.
The Role of Experts
In many cases, expert input becomes essential.
Actuaries and financial professionals can help estimate the present value of a pension or analyze how future benefits might play out. They bring a level of precision that is difficult to achieve otherwise.
But as with other areas of divorce, experts do not always agree.
Different assumptions can lead to very different results. One expert may view a pension as highly valuable, while another takes a more conservative approach.
That means part of the process often involves evaluating not just the numbers, but the reasoning behind them.
Why Pension Issues Can Slow a Case Down
Pension division has a way of slowing things down.
It’s not just the complexity. It’s the uncertainty.
When both parties are looking at the same asset but seeing very different values, it becomes difficult to reach agreement. And when the stakes are high, those disagreements tend to matter more.
After LeGault, there may also be additional negotiation around how to treat the premarital portion of a pension—whether it should be offset, and if so, how.
All of that can extend the timeline of a case.
Thinking Strategically About Pensions
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to dividing a pension.
In some cases, it makes sense to divide the pension itself and deal with payments in the future.
In others, it may be more practical to offset the value with other assets and avoid ongoing financial ties.
These decisions are not just legal—they are strategic.
Understanding how a court is likely to view the pension, including its premarital components, can help guide those choices in a meaningful way.
Frequently Asked Questions About Pension Division in New Hampshire Divorce
Are pensions included in a New Hampshire divorce?
Yes. Pensions are considered property under RSA 458:16-a and are subject to equitable division.
What is a defined benefit plan?
It is a pension that provides a future stream of income based on factors like salary and years of service, rather than an account balance.
What is the Hodgins formula?
It is a method of dividing pensions by awarding a percentage of future payments based on how much of the benefit was earned during the marriage.
Is the premarital portion of a pension excluded from division?
No. After LeGault, the premarital portion must be considered as part of the marital estate, although it may be awarded differently.
Can a pension be valued at the time of divorce?
Sometimes. Courts may attempt to determine present value, but in many cases the pension is divided when benefits are paid.
Do experts need to be involved in pension division?
Often, yes—especially when determining present value or analyzing future benefits.
Does dividing a pension delay a divorce?
It can. Pension issues are complex and can lead to extended negotiations or the need for expert analysis.
Final Thoughts
Pension division in New Hampshire divorce cases has always required careful attention.
What the LeGault decision makes clear is that courts must now take a more complete view of these assets. Even portions earned before the marriage cannot simply be set aside—they must be considered as part of the overall picture.
For anyone going through a divorce involving a defined benefit plan, that shift matters.
Because in many cases, the pension is not just another asset to divide.
It is one of the most important ones.