Opinion
No. 5-260 / 04-1120
Filed May 11, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Ronald H. Schechtman, Judge.
Keith Eldridge appeals the alimony provision of a dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.
William A. Habhab, Fort Dodge, for appellant.
Andrew Howie of Hudson, Mallaney Schindler, P.C., West Des Moines, and Edna Rodenborn of Rodenborn Law Office, Webster City, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Keith Eldridge appeals the alimony provision of the district court's dissolution decree. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Sharon and Keith Eldridge married at the ages of nineteen and twenty and remained married for thirty-six years. At the time of trial, they were fifty-five and fifty-six years old respectively. They had two adult children.
Sharon graduated from high school. After the marriage, she quit her retail job and did not return to the workforce. She took care of the children and, later, grandchildren, and also maintained the household. In addition, she assisted with bookkeeping, bill payments, painting, and cleaning of several properties the couple acquired during the marriage.
Keith was employed at two part-time jobs, as a bus driver and youth care worker. His annual income from these jobs was $13,885. The couple also received rental income from their properties.
Prior to trial, the parties agreed to divide their assets and debts equally, except that Sharon received an additional $10,500 in compensation for assisting in the care of Keith's mother. The district court approved a stipulation addressing the property issues, leaving only the question of alimony for trial.
Following trial, the court ordered Keith to pay Sharon alimony of $500 per month for a period of twenty-four months, beginning July 1, 2004, and continuing through June 1, 2006. Thereafter, alimony was to be reduced to $350 per month until March 1, 2011, when Sharon turned sixty-two. The alimony was to cease on Sharon's remarriage or Keith's death.
Keith appealed. Our review of the alimony issue is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4.
II. Alimony
Keith contends Sharon is not entitled to any alimony. He points to her "employability, the assets that she has received pursuant to the Stipulation, the $10,500 payment that she received for caring for [his] mother and the real estate rental income that she receives." Sharon counters that the alimony award should be affirmed given "the great difference in earning capacity between the parties and Sharon's present standard of living and Keith's clear ability to pay balanced against his relative needs."
We are not persuaded by Keith's arguments. This is a paradigm case for an award of alimony: A marriage of long duration and a spouse who earned no wages throughout the marriage, had limited education or skills to transfer to the workplace, and was incapable of self-support on the limited income she received. See Iowa Code § 598.21 (2001). In our view, the only issue is whether the amount awarded by the district court was equitable in light of the parties' relative incomes, earning capacities, and expenses. See In re Marriage of Stark, 542 N.W.2d 260, 262 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995) (balancing ability of one spouse to pay against needs of other spouse).
Sharon's only sources of income were monthly rent payments totaling $1646 from the properties she received in the divorce settlement, together with $200 per month from a land contract, applied toward the extra $10,500 she was awarded.
Keith estimated her rental income was $1721. The district court adopted Sharon's figure. Given the greater detail of her exhibit and the court's finding that Keith may have understated his rental income, we see no reason to deviate from the figures adopted by the district court.
Sharon estimated her monthly expenses, including medical and dental insurance, at $1600.00. The district court characterized this estimate as "relatively modest." We agree, and apply the same characterization to Sharon's alimony request of $500 per month.
Keith's salary translated into net monthly income of $1,020.30. Like Sharon, he also received monthly rent payments. His totaled $2325. Although his wage-based income was modest, the district court found, and we agree, that his rental income was understated. Specifically, several properties assigned to him in the dissolution were empty at the time of trial. Keith's testimony concerning how much he could expect to make from these and other properties lacked specificity. For example, when asked how much income the properties generated, he stated, "I guess I really don't know because it's been so staggered now lately with people moving out and damages and things. I wouldn't have any idea."
This again is Sharon's estimate. Keith's was $1438. For the reasons stated in footnote 1, we see no reason to adopt Keith's figure.
As for Keith's expenses, he lived in one of the properties rent free and spent approximately $1319 per month on other items, including utilities, health insurance, and food. During the dissolution proceedings, Keith paid temporary alimony in sums far greater than $500 per month.
We conclude Keith was able to pay the amount of alimony ordered by the district court. We further conclude the sum was equitable. The district court's plan accounted for Keith's limited though understated means and the fact that Sharon would receive social security benefits of $500 per month when she turned sixty-two. The plan also reflected Sharon's drive and commitment to earn a living, despite her limited and dated experience in the workforce.
III. Appellate Attorney Fees
Sharon requests appellate attorney fees. Awards are discretionary and determined by assessing the needs of the requesting party, the opposing party's ability to pay, and whether the requesting party was forced to defend the appeal. In re Marriage of Ales, 592 N.W.2d 698, 704 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
Sharon was required to defend this action. Her rental income barely met her monthly expenses. Accordingly, we order Keith to pay Sharon $1500 toward her attorney fee obligation or the actual sum expended on appeal, whichever is less.