Opinion
No. 1-929 / 00-1325.
Filed March 13, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, GEORGE L. STIGLER, Judge.
The petitioner appeals the property distribution provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Jay Roberts and Kellyann M. Lekar of Roberts, Stevens Lekar, Waterloo, for appellant.
Don Gottschalk, of Gottschalk, Shinkle, Mahoney, Cedar Falls, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and MAHAN and HECHT, JJ.
James Knipp appeals the property distribution provisions of the district court's decree dissolving his marriage to Cindra Knipp. We affirm as modified.
I. Factual Background and Proceedings.
The Knipps were married on June 23, 1973. They have five children, all of whom are now emancipated. Cindra was born October 7, 1952. She is in good health and currently works as a waitress. James was born March 9, 1949. In 1999, he had treatment for a coronary artery blockage and rotator cuff surgery. With the exception of minor problems with his knees, he is otherwise in reasonably good health. He is currently employed as an insurance agent.
On August 2, 1999, Cindra filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The fighting issues at trial concerned the division of marital assets. The district court awarded Cindra her IRA account valued at $4,000.00, a Suretrade account valued at $10,000.00, a non-IRA account valued at $10,014.00, one-half the proceeds from the auction of personal property and tools, and a two-third interest in the anticipated sale proceeds of the marital home estimated at $150,000.00. The court awarded James nine shares of John Deere stock, his IRA account valued at $79,000.00, one-half of the proceeds from the sale of personal property and tools, and a one-third interest of the sale proceeds of the marital home. The district court further awarded James all assets and debts of a business, known as Task Equipment. The district court determined Task Equipment had assets of approximately $84,000.00 and debts of approximately $93,124.00. The district court determined the unequal distribution of the marital home was necessary to accomplish an equitable division of the property. James appeals.
II. Standard of Review.
Our review of the economic provisions of a dissolution decree is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. In our review, we examine the entire record and adjudicate anew the issues properly presented. In re Marriage of Steenhoek, 305 N.W.2d 448, 452 (Iowa 1981).
III. Property Division.
James contends the district court failed to make an equitable distribution of the parties' marital property. In particular, James argues the district court erred in its valuation of the assets and debts of Task Equipment and erred in its division of the proceeds of the sale of the marital home.
In general, Iowa courts do not require an equal division of the property in dissolution of marriage cases. In re Marriage of Russell, 473 N.W.2d 244, 246 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991). The determining factor is what is fair and equitable in each circumstance. Id. An equitable distribution of the parties' property must be made according to the criteria set forth in Iowa Code section 598.21(1) (1999). In re Marriage of Goodwin, 606 N.W.2d 315, 319 (Iowa 2000). Although an equal division is not necessary, it should nevertheless be a general goal of trial courts to make the division of property approximately equal. In re Marriage of Conley, 284 N.W.2d 220, 223 (Iowa 1979).
Upon our de novo review of the record, we conclude the district court erred in calculating the amount of debts owned by Task Equipment. At trial, James presented evidence Task Equipment had assets totaling $89,500.00, including real property valued at $75,000.00, inventory valued at $9,500.00, and other assets totaling $5,000.00. James further presented evidence the debts of the business totaled $150,874.25, including $61,000.00 owed for the purchase of real property, $32,124.25 on an operating note, and $55,000.00 on another loan. Accordingly, we find the debt of Task Equipment exceeds the value of its assets by approximately $61,374.25.
James contends with the proper calculation of the net negative value of Task Equipment, the district court's property division results in a property distribution disparity of approximately $60,000.00. We agree. To remedy this disparity, we conclude the sale proceeds of the marital home shall be divided equally between the parties.
IV. Conclusion.
We modify the decree to provide the net proceeds from the sale of the marital home shall be divided equally between the parties. The parties shall execute and deliver documents, if any, required to effectuate this division of the marital home. The costs of this appeal shall be divided equally between the parties.