Property Division
- In Re Marriage of Hoak 365 N.W.2d 185 (Iowa 1985)
- In Re Marriage of Conley 284 N.W.2d 220 (Iowa 1979)
- Husband was a veterinarian and him and his wife had been married twenty-four years at the time of trial. They had six children, two of whom still lived at home.
- Husband was awarded the stock, office building, his life insurance, the farm, machinery, and livestock. He was ordered to pay the bank note. Wife was awarded the home, the household goods, her life insurance, and her inheritance. In an effort to equalize the property division, the court ordered John to pay Aurelia $90,000.
- As a result, the property division fell substantially short of the trial court's goal of an approximately equal division of the assets exclusive of Aurelia's inheritance. Particularly significant here are the length of the marriage and the equal efforts of the parties in raising a family and acquiring the marital property.
- Husband’s veterinary practice is the source of the parties' livelihood. The farmland is an investment. As such, it may well be expected to bear some of the burden of an equitable property division.
The parties accumulated substantial assets during the marriage. John practiced in a professional corporation and owned one-half its stock. The parties owned the office building in which the corporation was housed, their home, household goods, life insurance, a 285-acre farm, machinery and livestock.
Premarital Property
- In Re Marriage of Garst 573 N.W.2d 604 (Iowa 1985)
- David and Marilyn were married in 1985. It was the second marriage for both parties. No children were born to the marriage. At the time of the parties' marriage, Marilyn earned $18,000 per year. At David's insistence, Marilyn quit her job when the couple married. The prenuptial agreement indicated that David's net worth exceeded 3 million dollars. His testimony also reflected this amount. Marilyn's net worth was listed at $17,000, composed primarily of a car and personal property.
- David contends the district court erred in awarding Marilyn substantial assets as he claims Marilyn made no contribution to the appreciation or accumulation of assets and there was a substantial decline in David's net worth during the marriage. In making an equitable distribution of assets, the court must first determine what assets are available to be allocated between the spouses. To do this, the court must identify and value the assets of the parties, both jointly and separately. The value of the assets should then be determined as of the date of trial.
- By awarding Marilyn the Brutsche farm and the residence, the trial court gave her an income-producing asset and a place to live. David concedes Marilyn is not responsible for the farm debts, but asks that he be awarded the Brutsche farm to help service the debt. Rather than awarding Marilyn the Brutsche farm, the court found that a more equitable distribution would be for the Brutsche farm to be awarded to Marilyn and David in equal shares, as tenants in common. This modification more closely achieves equity between the parties.
- Cite Iowa Code Section 598.21 (1) and (1)(b)
- Upon every judgment of annulment, dissolution, or separate maintenance the court shall divide the property of the parties and transfer the title of the property accordingly, including ordering the parties to execute a quitclaim deed or ordering a change of title for tax purposes and delivery of the deed or change of title to the county recorder of the county in which each parcel of real estate is located. The county recorder shall record each quitclaim deed or change of title and shall collect the fees. The court shall divide all property, except inherited property or gifts received by one party, equitably between the parties after considering many elements, including: The length of the marriage and the property brought to the marriage by each party.
- In Re Marriage of Lattig 318 N.W.2d 811 (Iowa App. 1982)
- Couple was married in 1973. There were no children born of this marriage.
- Wife brought in personal items. Husband brought into the marriage an undivided one-quarter interest in residential property in Macksburg, Iowa, and a two hundred (200) acre farm in Madison County. The Macksburg property served as the marital residence of the parties. In March 1977, Richard's sisters sold him their interest in the Macksburg property for $2,000 each. To finance this and other purchases, Richard borrowed $12,464.84 and gave Associates a mortgage on the property. Shirley cosigned the promissory note to Associates. The remainder of the loan was used to insulate and re-side the house, to pay other family debts, and to purchase a pickup truck.
- The court ordered the residence immediately sold for cash. The parties sold the residence for $15,000.00. From this amount, the court ordered the parties to pay the loan balance and other joint debts totalling $14,246.77. The balance of the proceeds was to be applied to the court costs with Richard paying any deficit or receiving any excess proceeds.
- The court looked at what contributions were made by whom. Thus the full amount of the down payment was either made before the marriage with Richard's own funds or with funds he inherited. Richard made all payments on both the installment contract and on the Iowa State Bank loan during the marriage. Richard also paid all of the farm expenses. Shirley made no payments on the farm. As an additional factor in dividing appreciated property acquired before the marriage, we consider whether the appreciation which occurred during the marriage was fortuitous or due to the efforts of the parties.
- Where the accumulated property is not the product of the joint efforts of both parties or where, as here, one party brings property into the marriage, there need not necessarily be a division. This is especially true where the marriage was of short duration.
- Shirley did guarantee the loan for the farm equipment and did help on the farm for a short period of time before she began working full time. She should receive credit for the extent to which she was at risk under the loan agreement and for her contribution to the marriage. Accordingly, Shirley's equity in the farm in Madison County is reduced to $25,000.00.
Retirement and Pension Plans
- Cite 598.21(1)(1)
- Upon every judgment of annulment, dissolution, or separate maintenance the court shall divide the property of the parties and transfer the title of the property accordingly, including ordering the parties to execute a quitclaim deed or ordering a change of title for tax purposes and delivery of the deed or change of title to the county recorder of the county in which each parcel of real estate is located. The county recorder shall record each quitclaim deed or change of title and shall collect the fees. The court shall divide all property, except inherited property or gifts received by one party, equitably between the parties after considering many elements, including: Other economic circumstances of each party, including pension benefits, vested or unvested, and future interests.
- In Re Marriage of Johnston 492 N.W.2d 206 (Iowa App. 1992)
- Couple married December 31, 1982 and had no children; husband did not graduate high school and makes $28,632 per year. Wife graduated from high school and $20,020 per year
- The district court awarded wife a portion of the equity in the parties' home, because husband retained in his employer's profit sharing plan and 401K plan. Wife appealed on the contention that the district court failed to make an equitable distribution of marital property, by allowing each party to keep his or her own pension and profit sharing interests.
- The Appellate Court held that the exact value of the wife’s IPERS pension was not ascertainable. They would not assume the value is limited to wife’s vested contributions and disagreed with wife’s argument that a remand to take actuarial testimony to value the pension is necessary. In distributing property, the Iowa courts do not require an equal division or percentage distribution and therefore denied wife’s appeal.