Opinion
No. 2-328 / 01-1542.
Filed May 15, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, JOHN BAUERCAMPER, Judge.
Petitioner appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage, claiming the district court's property division was not equitable. AFFIRMED.
Gary McClintock of Hoeger McClintock, Independence, for appellant.
Mary Kennedy, Waterloo, for appellee.
Considered by MAHAN, P.J., and ZIMMER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Lori Pirillo appeals from the decree dissolving her marriage to James Pirillo. She claims the district court's property division was not equitable. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Lori and James were married in Iowa in 1984. They have two minor children. After their marriage, the parties moved to Seattle, Washington. Lori and James both worked at Boeing while they resided in Seattle. The parties moved back to Iowa in June of 2000.
In November of 2000 Lori filed a petition for separate maintenance. James responded with a counterclaim for dissolution of marriage. The parties were unable to reach a complete agreement concerning division of all their assets and debts. As a result, their case was tried to the court in March of 2001.
At the time of trial, Lori was thirty-nine, and James was nearly thirty-eight. Volt Services Group employs Lori on a contract basis at the rate of thirty dollars per hour. She generally works twenty-five to thirty hours per week. James is employed at John Deere earning an annual salary of $65,000.
Following trial, the district court entered a decree that incorporated the parties' joint physical care arrangement, set child support, and divided the parties' property and debts. Lori appeals.
II. Scope of Review.
Our review of the economic provisions of a dissolution decree is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. We give weight to the fact-findings of the trial court but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g).
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).
III. Property Distribution.
During their marriage the parties accumulated both real and personal property. Pursuant to their agreement, the district court ordered their home in Iowa sold, the mortgage and expenses of the sale paid, and the net proceeds divided equally. All retirement plans and pension plans owned by the parties were equally divided by qualified domestic relations orders.
On appeal, Lori contends she is entitled to an additional $14,900 in cash. According to Lori, this sum represents one half of the balance that was remaining in a joint account at the time James transferred the proceeds of the account to an account in his name alone. When Lori and James moved to Iowa, they sold their home in Seattle. They used the proceeds of the sale to make a down payment on a home in Iowa and purchase other assets. They also used the proceeds to retire debt. At some point in time while their dissolution was pending, James removed Lori's name from the joint account. After doing so, he paid off additional marital debt including a car loan and credit card debt. According to Lori, these debts were paid without her express permission. Lori now characterizes James's actions as a dissipation of marital funds. Upon de novo review of the record, we find little support for this contention. The record suggests James used a significant portion of the funds Lori now claims to pay off joint debt. If these debts had not been paid, it is likely that they would have been divided between the parties. Further, the record indicates that neither party informed the court that the balances in their individual bank accounts were grossly unequal. In its decree, the trial court found that the balances of the parties' individual bank accounts were unknown at the time of trial.
Lori's argument on appeal is diminished somewhat by her own failure to provide the trial court with financial information pertinent to an equitable division of assets and debts. In its decree, the trial court expressed frustration with the lack of information. The court stated:
On December 18, 2000, James filed an affidavit of financial status on the form required and prescribed by Section 598.13, Code of Iowa. Lori did not file a similar affidavit. Neither party filed child support guideline worksheets as directed by the Order filed in this case on November 7, 2000. No joint Disclosure Statement was filed as required by the applicable administrative order for dissolution cases in the First Judicial District. No income tax returns or W-2 forms were offered in evidence by counsel.
The court also mentioned that Lori placed no values on the list of tangible personal property items she asked the court to award to her. The court also noted that neither party presented appraisals or expert testimony to assist in establishing disputed property values.
Upon review of the record, we cannot say the trial court's allocation of assets and debts was inequitable.
AFFIRMED.