Opinion
No. 1-878 / 01-0998.
Filed January 9, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, JON FISTER, Judge.
Wendell Bantz appeals from the alimony and attorney fee provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Gary F. McClintock, Independence, for appellant.
John S. Pieters, Sr., Jesup, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Wendell Bantz appeals from the economic provisions of the district court's decree dissolving his marriage to Linda Bantz. Wendell challenges the district court's award of permanent alimony, arguing that it is premised on incredible evidence that Linda is unable to work due to diagnoses of fibromyalgia, postpolio syndrome, and arthritis. Wendell also contends the district court's awards of $800 per month in alimony and $750 in trial attorney fees are excessive. On cross appeal, Linda requests appellate attorney fees.
Upon our de novo review, we find an award of permanent alimony is warranted. See Iowa R. App. P. 4 (equity cases are reviewed de novo); see also Iowa Code § 598.21(3) (1999) (enumerating factors bearing on appropriateness of alimony, including length of marriage, age and health of the parties, parties' relative earning capacities, and likelihood party seeking alimony will become self-supporting at standard of living comparable to that during marriage). Wendell and Linda were married nearly thirty years. Both were forty-eight years old at the time of the dissolution proceeding. Linda is a high-school graduate with insubstantial work experience. Her prospects for self-sufficiency are limited because of her lesser earning capacity and physical condition. Although the evidence concerning the effect of Linda's physical condition on her earning capacity was conflicting, the district court resolved these conflicts in Linda's favor. We defer to the resulting findings of fact because they implicate the trial court's assessment of the parties' credibility. See Neimann v. Butterfield, 551 N.W.2d 652, 654 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996) (finding the trial court has a superior vantage point to make credibility determinations due to its ability to consider firsthand the demeanor and appearance of parties).
Like the district court, we find Wendell's income of approximately $38,000 per year is sufficient to pay alimony without a disproportionate reduction in his accustomed standard of living. We agree with Wendell, however, that the district court's alimony award of $800 per month is excessive. An award of $500 per month more closely balances Linda's need with Wendell's ability to pay. See In re Marriage of Hitchcock, 309 N.W.2d 432, 436-37 (Iowa 1981) ("When determining the appropriateness of alimony, the trial court must consider: (1) the earning capacity of each party, and (2) present standards of living and ability to pay balanced against relative needs of the other.").
We also reject Wendell's challenge to the district court's award of trial attorney fees. See In re Marriage of Giles, 338 N.W.2d 544, 546 (Iowa Ct.App. 1983) (trial court has considerable discretion in awarding attorney fees). We find no abuse of discretion and affirm the court's award of trial attorney fees. In re Marriage of Chmelicek, 480 N.W.2d 571, 576 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991) (attorney fee award must be for fair and reasonable amount and based on parties' respective abilities to pay).
The parties are ordered to pay their own attorney fees. Costs of this appeal are taxed to Wendell.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.