Opinion
No. 2-689 / 01-1795.
Filed August 28, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Eliza Ovrom, Judge.
Jeffrey Thomsen appeals the property division and alimony provisions of the parties' dissolution decree.
AFFIRMED.
Ryan Genest of Borseth, Genest Siebrecht Law Firm, Altoona, for appellant.
Randall L. Jackson of the Bertroche Law Offices, Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Mahan, JJ.
Jeffrey Thomsen appeals the property division and alimony provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. He claims it was inequitable to award Shirley Thomsen one-half of the proceeds from the sale of their home. He also claims the amount of alimony awarded was excessive. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Jeffrey and Shirley were married in 1983. At the time of the dissolution hearing, Jeffrey was fifty-one years old. He worked as a steamfitter, welder, and licensed plumber. In 2000 he had income of $52,217. Shirley was fifty-nine years old at the time of the hearing. She did not work during the marriage. She receives Social Security disability benefits of $373 per month based on a diagnosis of affective mood disorder. She also has a number of health problems, including fibromyalgia, osteoarthritis, and diverticulitis. Shirley's prescription medicines cost $432 per month.
The district court issued a dissolution decree for the parties on July 30, 2001. The court awarded each party one-half of Jeffrey's pension benefits accumulated during the marriage and one-half of the proceeds from the sale of the parties' home. Jeffrey was also awarded his life insurance policies. The court ordered Jeffrey to pay Shirley alimony of $1000 per month until April 1, 2005, at which time Shirley will be eligible to receive pension benefits. Thereafter, Jeffrey is responsible to pay alimony of $400 per month until April 1, 2012, when Shirley will be eligible to receive Social Security retirement benefits.
Jeffrey filed a motion to reconsider, which the district court denied. Jeffrey now appeals the property division and alimony provisions of the parties' dissolution decree.
II. Scope of Review
Our scope of review in this equitable action is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. In equity cases, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, the court gives weight to the fact findings of the district court, but is not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( g).
III. Property Division
Jeffrey contends the property division was inequitable to him. He points out that he put a downpayment on the parties' house in 1978 and made payments prior to the marriage. Jeffrey notes Shirley did not work during the marriage and during the later years she did not contribute much to the housework due to her health. Jeffrey asserts the entire proceeds from the sale of the house, $88,000, should be awarded to him.
The partners to a marriage are entitled to a just and equitable share of the property accumulated through their joint efforts. In re Marriage of Wendell, 581 N.W.2d 197, 199 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). The property distribution should be made pursuant to the criteria codified in Iowa Code section 598.21(1) (2001). In re Marriage of Gonzalez, 561 N.W.2d 94, 98 (Iowa 1997).
While Jeffrey purchased the house prior to the parties' marriage, the house had very low equity at the time of the marriage. The value of the house appreciated during the course of the marriage. Shirley spent her Social Security disability checks on household expenses, and we conclude she contributed to the upkeep of the house to the best of her ability. We note the parties were married about eighteen years. We also look at the age and physical and emotional health of the parties. Based on the equities in this case, we determine Shirley was entitled to one-half of the proceeds from the sale of the house.
IV. Alimony
Jeffrey claims the amount of alimony awarded to Shirley was excessive. He recognizes that due to her health problems Shirley needs some amount of alimony, but asks to have the amount reduced to $500 per month until April 1, 2005, then $250 per month thereafter until April 1, 2012. He states his income is not sufficient for him to pay the large amount of alimony awarded.
Alimony is not an absolute right; an award depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. In re Marriage of Kurtt, 561 N.W.2d 385, 387 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). The discretionary award of alimony is made after considering those factors listed in section 598.21(3). In re Marriage of Sychra, 552 N.W.2d 907, 908 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). We consider the length of the marriage, the age and health of the parties, the parties' earning capacities, the levels of education, and the likelihood the party seeking alimony will be self-supporting at a standard of living comparable to the one enjoyed during the marriage. In re Marriage of Clinton, 579 N.W.2d 835, 839 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998).
In ruling on Jeffrey's motion to reconsider, the district court stated:
This case presented the common situation where a divorcing couple can live comfortably while sharing household expenses, but cannot live as comfortably after the divorce. However, this case is unusual in that Mrs. Thomsen has been determined to be totally disabled. She is not capable of supporting herself, and she is also losing her health care benefits by virtue of the divorce. The Court did not award Mrs. Thomsen all that she requested, but does believe that the amount of alimony awarded is equitable, and is supported by the relevant statutory considerations.
We concur in the district court's conclusions on this issue. We determine the amount of alimony is equitable under the facts of this case.
We affirm the decision of the district court.
AFFIRMED.