Opinion
No. 6-113 / 05-1284
Filed March 29, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Paul R. Huscher, Judge.
Cathy Buck appeals the spousal support and attorney fee provisions of a dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.
Bernard L. Spaeth, Jr., and Jonathan Kramer of Whitfield Eddy, P.L.C., Des Moines, and Lee Walker of Walker Billingsley, Newton, for appellant.
Jennifer L. Zahradnik of Kollmorgen Schlue, Belle Plaine, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Cathy Buck appeals the spousal support and attorney fee provisions of a dissolution decree. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Cathy and Fred Buck were married for twenty-eight years. They have two adult children.
During the marriage, Fred worked in the manufacturing sector, first for Maytag Corporation, and then for a company in Montezuma, Iowa. At the time of trial, he was a salaried employee earning $54,000 annually. He also gave banjo lessons at Grinnell College, which afforded him additional income of $6500 to $7500 annually.
Cathy was fifty-two years old at the time of trial. She obtained a high school diploma and took a post-secondary receptionist training course in the 1970's. She did not earn wages for the first twelve years of the marriage, electing instead to care for the parties' home and children. After that period, she began working as a special education teaching assistant. At the time of trial, she was still in this nine-month position, earning approximately $14,000 annually. She suffered from several health problems, including fibromyalgia and depression.
Following trial, the district court awarded Cathy $750 per month in spousal support "until the Respondent dies, remarries or begins receiving her half of the Maytag pension." The court also ordered the parties to pay their own trial attorney fees. Cathy appealed.
II. Spousal Support
Cathy takes issue with the amount of the spousal support award, claiming she should have received $2000 per month. Fred counters that the award of $750 per month is "appropriate and equitable under the circumstances." On our de novo review, we agree with Fred.
At the time of the dissolution, Cathy received approximately $108,000 in proceeds from the sale of the parties' home, together with other assets. In addition, the district court found, and we agree, that Cathy was capable of earning wages during the summer months, notwithstanding her health problems. Finally, while the record is clear that Cathy was incapable of self-support, we are not persuaded that she was entitled to precisely one-half of the parties' combined earnings, as she contends. Our courts have not endorsed a formulaic approach to the calculation of spousal support. Instead, the legislature has prescribed several factors for consideration, based on the particular circumstances of a case. See Iowa Code § 598.21(3) (2005); In re Marriage of Anliker, 694 N.W.2d 535, 540 (Iowa 2005). The district court considered these factors. We afford the court's determination "considerable latitude." See Anliker, 694 N.W.2d at 540. Finding the ruling equitable, we affirm.
III. Attorney Fees
The district court did not order Fred to pay Cathy's trial attorney fees. The court acted well within its discretion, as Cathy received a cash property settlement from which she could draw to pay her fees. See In re Marriage of Geil, 509 N.W.2d 738, 743 (Iowa 1993) (setting forth discretionary standard).
The parties have asked us to order payment of the other's appellate attorney fees. Given Fred's income and Cathy's cash award, we decline both requests.