Opinion
No. 1-978 / 01-0862
Filed April 10, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Kurt L. Wilke, Judge.
The respondent appeals from the property distribution provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.
Monte Fisher, Fort Dodge, for appellant.
Dan McGrevey, Fort Dodge, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
John Peterson appeals the property distribution provisions of the district court's decree dissolving his marriage to Kathy Peterson. John contends the district court erred in failing to set aside a portion of monetary gifts received by him from his mother and father during the marriage before dividing the parties' property. We affirm.
I. Factual Background and Proceedings.
The Petersons were married on April 3, 1977. They have two children. Only the youngest child, Seth, is a minor. Kathy is forty-three years old and in good health. She has been employed throughout the marriage. In 1995, she received an associate's degree in nursing. Since graduation, Kathy has worked as a registered nurse with gross income of $34,000.00 per year. John is forty-six years old and in good health. John has worked for approximately seven years as a customer service representative with gross income of $39,760.00. On May 2, 2000, Kathy filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The fighting issues at trial were the division of marital assets. The controversy centered on property received by John during the marriage from his parents.
Between 1994 and 1997, John's parents gave him $49,000.00. John requested the district court set aside $20,255.44 of the $49,000.00, contending at least that amount was spent during the marriage on improvements to the marital home. Kathy argued the money was a gift to both parties. Although the district court agreed the money was a gift to John alone, the court found it could not discern whether the home improvements were paid with gifted money or from the parties' joint income because the money for home improvements was spent from a joint checking account, where both the gifts and Kathy's income were deposited. The district court concluded John had failed to establish he was entitled to an offset since the gifts were not distinguishable or separable from John and Kathy's other assets. The district court awarded John property valued at $136,915.00, including the marital home. Kathy was awarded property valued at $41,937.00. The court ordered John to pay Kathy $47,489.00 to complete the property division. John appeals.
John's parents gave him checks totaling $20,000.00 in 1994, $20,000.00 in 1995, and $9,000.00 in 1997.
II. Scope of Review.
Our review of the economic provisions of a dissolution decree is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. We examine the entire record and adjudicate anew the issues properly presented. In re Marriage of Steenhoek, 305 N.W.2d 448, 452 (Iowa 1981). We give the trial court's factual findings weight in considering the credibility of witnesses, although we are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( g); In re Marriage of Clinton, 579 N.W.2d 835, 838 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998).
III. Discussion.
John contends the district court erred in failing to set aside $20,255.44 of $49,000.00 in gifts received by him from his mother and father during the marriage before dividing the parties' property. We disagree.
Iowa Code section 598.21(2) (1999) provides in pertinent part:
Property inherited by either party or gifts received by either party prior to or during the course of the marriage is the property of that party and is not subject to a property division . . . except upon a finding that refusal to divide the property is inequitable to the other party or to the children of the marriage.
Iowa Code § 598.21(2). Factors considered in determining whether inherited or gifted property should be divided include:
(1) contributions of the parties toward the property, its care, preservation or improvement;
(2) the existence of any independent close relationship between the donor or testator and the spouse of the one to whom the property was given or devised;
(3) separate contributions by the parties to their economic welfare to whatever extent those contributions preserve the property for either of them;
(4) any special needs of either party;
(5) any other matter which would render it plainly unfair to a spouse or child to have the property set aside for the exclusive enjoyment of the donee or designee.
In re Marriage of Thomas, 319 N.W.2d 209, 211 (Iowa 1982). The court also considers "the length of the marriage; contributions made by each party toward the property's care, preservation, or improvement; and the impact of the property on the parties' standard of living." In re Marriage of Geil, 509 N.W.2d 738, 741 (Iowa 1993). Other matters, such as the amount of time elapsed from the receipt of gifted property and the commencement of dissolution proceedings, whether marital assets were diverted to enhance the value of the gifted property, and whether the gifted assets "are easily identified and were not commingled with the marital assets" bear on the issue of whether to divide gifted property. In re Marriage of Van Brocklin, 468 N.W.2d 40, 44 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991).
After consideration of these factors, we find the district court correctly determined John should not receive an offset for the $20,255.44 in gifted money allegedly used for home improvements. The Petersons were married for over twenty years and a majority of the gifts were given more than four years prior to the commencement of dissolution proceedings. Furthermore, according to testimony at trial, Kathy shared an independent close relationship with John's mother. Moreover, Kathy worked throughout the entire marriage, depositing all of her earnings in the same account as the gifts. The district court properly concluded the gifts were not distinguishable or separable from the parties' other assets. The expenditures for home improvements were made from the jointly owned bank account which contained Kathy's earnings. In fact, many of John's receipts for home improvements are either in both parties' names or in Kathy's name alone, making it virtually impossible for us conclude if the home improvements were paid for with gifted money rather than Kathy's income. Accordingly, we find the district court's determination equitable and affirm the decision in its entirety.
AFFIRMED.