Opinion
No. 5-785 / 05-0437
Filed November 23, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Lawrence H. Fautsch, Judge.
Kristin Toom appeals the district court judgment (1) dismissing her petition for marriage dissolution and application for temporary support and (2) granting the petition for forcible entry and detainer to evict her. Jeffery Nagle cross-appeals the district court's judgment requiring him to pay attorney's fees. AFFIRMED.
Jennifer Clemens-Conlon and Sarah E. Stork Meyer of Clemens, Walters, Conlon Meyer, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant.
Jeffrey Trannel of Hughes Trannel, P.C., Dubuque, for appellee.
Heard by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
Kristin Toom appeals the district court judgment (1) dismissing her petition for marriage dissolution and application for temporary support and (2) granting the petition for forcible entry and detainer to evict her. She argues the district court erred when it concluded she was not married. Jeffrey Nagle cross-appeals the district court's judgment requiring him to pay attorney's fees. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Kristin Toom and Jeffrey Nagle met on February 16, 1990. According to Toom, within three weeks of their meeting, Nagle agreed to marry her. Nagle claims he made no such agreement. He argues that a prior divorce proceeding with another woman soured any inclination he may have had toward marriage. No wedding ceremony occurred. Nonetheless, the two agreed to celebrate their "anniversary" each February 16. Toom and Nagle lived together for fourteen years. Nagle has been living at another residence since their relationship ended in August 2004.
Toom refers to February 16 as their "marriage anniversary." Nagle refers to February 16 as the anniversary of their first date.
Toom has a son from a previous relationship. Nagle treated him as his own son for the fourteen years of the relationship. Nagle and Toom discussed Nagle's adoption of the child. They determined, however, not to proceed with the adoption to avoid telling the child he was not Nagle's biological son.
Toom brought this petition for dissolution in October 2004. She claims she reasonably believed they were married because (1) Nagle gave her greeting cards depicting wedding bands and inscribed with the words "To my Wife;" (2) Nagle allowed himself to be introduced as her "husband"; (3) Nagle helped raise her son; (4) Nagle listed her as his spouse in golf tournament registrations; (5) Nagle named her as a beneficiary on his IRA and life insurance policies; (6) they were listed under the name "Nagle" in the Dubuque Museum of Art directory; and (7) several of Toom's friends believed they were married.
Nagle claims he never intended to marry Toom. He argues he never agreed to marry and never declared their marriage publicly because (1) they always filed separate tax returns; (2) they never commingled funds; (3) they kept separate credit cards; (4) they did not share ownership interest in Nagle's business; (5) all real estate transactions were in his own name; (6) he listed himself as unmarried on his life insurance policies; (7) Toom listed Nagle as single and herself as his significant other in a retirement account application; (8) he retained individual ownership of all the vehicles the couple used; (9) all of his property and liability insurance is in his name; (10) Toom retained her name; and (11) any travel arrangements were made in his name alone or in the names "Jeff Nagle and Kristin Toom."
The district court analogized the case to In re Marriage of Martin, 681 N.W.2d 612 (Iowa 2004). After nearly five days of testimony, it found Nagle's explanation of his aversion to marriage to be credible. The court also found it significant that the only people who thought Toom and Nagle were married were Toom's friends. It determined that many of the exhibit documents listing Toom as Nagle's "wife" had been altered. Instead, the original documents referred to Toom as Nagle's "significant other." The court concluded that Nagle's and Toom's public declarations of marriage were too inconsistent to conclude a common law marriage existed. Finally, the ruling awarded Toom attorney's fees. Both Toom and Nagle appeal.
II. Standard of Review
We review claims of common law marriage de novo. Martin, 681 N.W.2d at 616. Though they do not bind us, we give deference to the district court's credibility determinations when reviewing actions in equity. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( g); In re Marriage of Ales, 592 N.W.2d 698, 702 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999).
III. Merits
In order to prove the existence of a common law marriage, Toom must show (1) present intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declaration of the marriage. Martin, 681 N.W.2d at 617.
We agree with the district court that both Toom and Nagle conducted themselves inconsistently as a married couple. Both parties claim the other altered the content of various financial documents: he for the purposes of either shifting income or lulling her into believing they were married, she for the purposes of this action. Because neither appears to have especially clean hands with regard to representations they made to one another, the public, and the court, we rely on the district court's credibility determinations.
"The public declaration or holding out to the public is considered to be the acid test of a common law marriage." Martin, 681 N.W.2d at 617. It is persuasive that the two did not file joint tax returns, list one another as spouses on financial or insurance forms, own property jointly, commingle their finances, share the same name, or receive their mail under names that would indicate they were married. They even split the cost of a housekeeper. There were several occasions, like for insurance purposes or when Nagle was contemplating adopting Toom's son, that would have been both convenient and beneficial for the couple to have treated themselves as married. On those occasions, however, they referred to themselves as single. See Martin, 681 N.W.2d at 616, 618.
Neither party called their postal carrier to testify as to how the couple's mail was usually addressed, but none of the envelopes offered by Toom indicate she and Nagle were married.
Furthermore, though they celebrated an "anniversary" each February 16, testimony shows they only agreed they were "going" to get married by the end of the year 1990. Apparently, at no time did they discuss the present existence of a marriage. "The present-intent-to-be-married requirement precludes a common law marriage based on an intent to be married at some future time." Id.
As a result, we conclude the evidence does not support a common law marriage. We therefore uphold the district court's dismissal of Toom's petition for dissolution and application for support. In addition, we conclude the court's decision in the forcible entry and detainer action must stand.
District courts have considerable discretion in awarding trial attorney's fees. In re Marriage of Krone, 530 N.W.2d 468, 472 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). In awarding Toom $5,000 in trial attorney's fees, the court neither abused its discretion nor awarded an unreasonable amount. See id. Though we conclude that Toom and Nagle were not married, they did cohabit for fourteen years, name one another as beneficiaries to insurance policies, share the cost of living to some extent, raise a child together, and make various public declarations of marriage. This circumstantial evidence creates a fair presumption of a common law marriage sufficient to award attorney's fees. Martin, 681 N.W.2d at 619-20. The district court may therefore award attorney's fees to Toom even though she did not prevail on the actual claim. The decision to award appellate attorney's fees is discretionary. In re Marriage of Davis, 608 N.W.2d 766, 773 (2000). We are to consider the needs of the party making the request, the ability of the other party to pay, and whether the requesting party was obligated to defend the district court's opinion. Id. We decline to award appellate attorney's fees here. Costs of this appellate action are taxed one-half to each party.