Opinion
No. 1-959 / 01-0451.
Filed March 13, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, ANNETTE J. SCIESZINSKI, Judge.
Mark Hall appeals from the property division of the decree dissolving his marriage to Sue Hall. AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey Logan, of Patrick F. Curran Law Offices, Ottumwa, for appellant.
Rose Anne Mefford, of Albers Mefford, Albia, for appellee.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Mark Hall appeals from the decree dissolving his marriage to Sue Hall. He claims the trial court erred in awarding Sue a portion of his 401(k) account. We affirm.
The parties began living together in August 1997, were married in February 1998, separated in June 2000, and their marriage was dissolved in February 2001. They have no children together. Mark was thirty-nine years of age and Sue forty-four years of age at the dissolution of their marriage.
Mark is a salaried foreman or superintendent for a general contractor which does commercial construction, a position he has held for more than ten years. He is paid about $60,000 per year, plus benefits which include an employer contribution to a 401(k) plan. His employer also reimburses him for expenses for food and lodging he incurs when working away from home.
Sue has been employed by the U.S. Postal Service for fifteen years. She earns about $36,000 per year plus benefits.
Trial was limited to four property issues. The contested issues were disposition of an $800 compressor and a $350 power washer, whether Sue owed Mark $3500, and Sue's request that she be awarded $16,941 of Mark's 401(k) account. The parties agreed that all other property had been divided in a fair and equitable manner. On appeal Mark claims the trial court erred in awarding $10,070 of his 401(k) account to Sue.
Our review in this equity action is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. We give weight to the fact findings of the district court, particularly when considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g).
During the parties' marriage Sue paid the very great majority of their joint household expenses, such as the house payment and food, telephone and utilities expenses. This allowed Mark to continue to contribute seven percent of his salary to his 401(k) plan and pay child support to two mothers of his children. Sue was apparently primarily responsible for housekeeping and homemaking, as Mark worked away from home at times.
At the time of the parties' marriage Mark's 401(k) account had a balance of $85,156, the result of his contributions for about ten years, his employer's contributions, and appreciation. Sue noticed Mark's account was divided between two funds, one of which was a bond fund that paid a return of only about two percent. She suggested he change it to funds that had historically paid a much greater return. After checking with his employer's investment advisor he did so. When the parties' marriage was dissolved his 401(k) account had grown to $146,439.
The parties' are entitled to a just and equitable share of the property accumulated through their joint efforts, which does not require an equal or percentage distribution, the determining factor being what is fair and equitable in each circumstance. In re Marriage of Gonzalez, 561 N.W.2d 94, 98 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). An equitable distribution must be made according to the criteria in Iowa Code section 598.21(1) (1999). In re Marriage of Goodwin, 606 N.W.2d 315, 319 (Iowa 2000).
An additional factor in dividing appreciated property acquired before the marriage is whether the appreciation which occurred during the marriage was fortuitous or due to the efforts of the parties. An equitable property division of the appreciated value of the property should be a function of the tangible contributions of each party and not the mere existence of the marital relationship. 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.In re Marriage of Hass, 538 N.W.2d 889, 893 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (citations and quotations omitted).
The fact the parties lived together three and one-years and were married only three years is a factor suggesting Sue is entitled to little or none of the appreciation in Mark's 401(k) account. However, homemaking is a tangible contribution to a marriage, Iowa Code § 598.21(1)(c), and Sue contributed substantially more in that area than Mark did. Mark's contributions to his 401(k) account were to some extent facilitated by Sue's payment of the great majority of the expenses of maintaining a home and providing food for the parties. Sue's investment advice was a significant factor in the large appreciation in Mark's 401(k) account. We conclude the trial court appropriately awarded Sue $10,070 of the $59,883 growth in Mark's 401(k) account and affirm on this issue.
AFFIRMED.