Opinion
No. 3-451 / 02-2076
Filed August 27, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Robert J. Curnan, Judge.
James Herrig appeals from the decree dissolving his marriage to Laura Herring. AFFIRMED.
Robert Day, Jr. of Day Hellmer, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant.
Timothy White and Deborah Skelton of White Johnson, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.
James Herrig appeals from the decree dissolving his marriage to Laura Herrig. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings. James and Laura were married on October 27, 1989. At James' insistence, they signed an antenuptial agreement before the wedding. The agreement provided that post-marital property would be the "sole and separate property of the Party acquiring the property, and the other Party shall have no interest of any kind therein."
In 1992 and 1993, Laura received two gifts from her mother-in-law, totaling $12,000.00. Upon receipt of these checks, Laura turned the money over to James. The parties disagreed at trial about how James disposed of the money. Laura claimed James invested it. James, however, gave conflicting testimony indicating he may have either invested it or spent it on household expenses.
In February of 2001, Laura filed for divorce. After a hearing in which the antenuptial agreement was determined to be valid and enforceable, a trial was held on the remaining issues. The district court issued a decree dissolving the marriage and awarding Laura a judgment in the amount of $17,588.00, representing the $12,000.00 she had received from her mother-in-law, plus interest. James filed a post-trial motion requesting an order directing Laura to reimburse him in the amount of $2000.00 for taxes incurred when Laura filed her 2001 tax return separately in violation of the antenuptial agreement. In its ruling, the district court noted that Laura had violated the agreement, but denied James's request for relief on the basis that ordering Laura to pay $2000.00 would negatively affect the economic well-being of the children.
James appeals, contending the district court erred by awarding Laura $17,588.00 and by failing to order Laura to pay $2000.00 for breach of the antenuptial agreement. Laura, in her reply, requests this court order James pay her reasonable appellate attorney fees and court costs.
II. Scope and Standard of Review. Our review is de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4. We are not bound by the district court's findings of fact, but we give them deference because the district court had the advantage of viewing the witnesses firsthand. In re Marriage of Brown, 487 N.W.2d 331, 332 (Iowa 1992).
III. The $12,000.00 Gift. James contends the district court erred in awarding Laura a judgment for $17,588.00. Although James admits his mother gifted $12,000.00 to Laura, he argues that Laura in turn gifted that money to him when she delivered it to him. Laura asserts that she never intended to give the money permanently to James.
After a de novo review of the record, we conclude James's mother did give the money to Laura and that Laura did not relinquish her rights to the money by allowing James to invest it. The district court's decision on this issue is well-reasoned, and we adopt it as our own. We affirm the district court's award of $17,588.00 to Laura.
IV. Reimbursement for Tax Liability. James further argues the district court erred in its refusal to order Laura to reimburse James for a $2000.00 tax liability he incurred when Laura violated the antenuptial agreement by filing separately in 2001.
The district court acknowledged that Laura had breached the agreement when she filed separately in 2001. The district court further found that Laura's standard of living, even with child support, was substantially lower than James's and ordering Laura to pay $2000.00 would negatively impact the children's economic well-being. The district court determined it was in the children's best interests not to order Laura to reimburse James.
We again agree with the reasoning of the district court and affirm the district court's decision on this issue.
V. Appellate Attorney Fees. Laura requests the award of reasonable attorney fees and costs of the appeal be assessed to James. An award of appellate attorney fees is discretionary. We must consider the needs of the requesting party, the other party's ability to pay, and whether the requesting party was obligated to defend the district court's decision on appeal. In re Marriage of Davis, 608 N.W.2d 766, 773 (Iowa 2000). After applying these factors, we determine James should pay Laura's reasonable appellate attorney fees in the amount of $1500.00 and costs of the appeal shall be assessed to James.
AFFIRMED.
Eisenhauer, J., concurs; Zimmer, P.J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion which affirms the trial court's refusal to order Laura to reimburse James for the tax liability he incurred when Laura violated the antenuptial agreement by filing a separate tax return in 2001. I would modify the decree by setting off the tax liability against the judgment Laura was awarded. In all other matters, I concur with the majority.