Opinion
No. 5-269 / 04-1406
Filed June 15, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Iowa County, Kristin L. Hibbs, Judge.
Husband appeals from property division provisions of the decree dissolving the parties' marriage. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Thomas Grabinski, Grinnell, for appellant.
Michael Brice, Oskaloosa, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
Brian Weiss appeals from the property division provisions of the decree dissolving his marriage to Patricia Weiss. He asserts the court failed to make an equitable division of the parties' assets and debts. Upon our de novo review, we modify the decree to reduce the amount of the equalizing payment Brian was ordered to make to Patricia. The remainder of the court's decree is affirmed.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
The parties were married in December 1996. Patricia had little if any net worth at the time of the marriage. Brian farmed for a number of years before the parties married. He brought farming equipment and a significant quantity of harvested grain into the marriage.
Brian purchased a farm from his mother approximately one month before the parties' marriage. He paid his mother $45,000, which was $10,000 less than the farm's fair market value. During the marriage both Brian and Patricia worked on and contributed to the upkeep of the farm. In addition, each held jobs unrelated to the farming operation.
Patricia moved out of the marital home in April 2003. Her petition for the dissolution of the parties' marriage came on for hearing in May 2004. In its dissolution decree the district court divided the parties' assets and debts nearly equally. The court awarded Brian the farm and the vast majority of the farming equipment, but divided the net equity of the farm and the net value of the equipment equally between the parties. The parties' remaining assets and liabilities, including livestock, grain, a trust account, a feed bill, 401(k) accounts, a personal injury settlement, a life insurance policy, and several vehicles, were also divided on an approximately equal basis. The court ordered Brian to make an equalizing payment to Patricia of $100,000. Although not specified as such by the court, it appears the equalization payment represents one-half the net value of the farm and farming equipment that was divided equally between the parties.
The court did set aside to Brian $10,000 for the difference between the purchase price and the fair market value of the farm at the time of purchase.
Brian was also ordered to pay Patricia an additional $12,323.50, which represented Patricia's share of certain cattle sold by Brian during the pendency of the action. Brian does not dispute this payment.
Brian filed a motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2), which was granted in part and denied in part. This appeal followed. On appeal Brian contends that, prior to the division of the parties' assets and debts, the district court should have set aside to him the value of the harvested grain and certain farm equipment he owned at the time of the parties' marriage. He also contends the court erred when it rejected as unreliable evidence a letter on Wells Fargo stationary. He asserts the letter sufficiently demonstrates indebtedness on two pieces of farm equipment. Finally, Brian contends the court made a factual error in its division of the parties' vehicles.
II. Scope and Standard of Review.
Our review of this matter is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; In re Marriage of Wagner, 604 N.W.2d 605, 608 (Iowa 2000). Although not bound by the district court's factual findings, we give them weight, especially when assessing the credibility of witnesses. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)( g).
III. Discussion.
In allocating the parties' assets and debts, the court strives to make a division that is fair and equitable under the circumstances. In re Marriage of Russell, 473 N.W.2d 244, 246 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991). Iowa courts do not require an equal division or percentage distribution; rather, the determining factor is what is fair and equitable in each particular case. Id. In determining what division would be equitable, courts are guided by the criteria set forth in Iowa Code section 598.21(1) (2003).
In seeking a setoff for the value of the premarital grain and farming equipment, Brian correctly points out that two criteria of particular significance in this case are the length of the marriage and the property brought to the marriage by each party. Iowa Code § 598.21(1)(a)-(b). However, the court must also consider a number of other factors, including the contribution of each party to the marriage. Id. § 598.21(1)(c). Moreover, unlike most gifted or inherited property, premarital property is subject to division. See id. § 598.21(1)(b), (2); In re Marriage of Garst, 573 N.W.2d 604, 606 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). Thus, we cannot agree with Brian that he is entitled to what is in effect a dollar-per-dollar setoff for the value of his premarital property. Rather, we weigh all relevant factors, paying particular attention, in this marriage of relatively short duration, to the value of Brian's premarital assets, and to the parties' contributions during the marriage.
The record reveals the parties have similar earning capacities, and that both substantially contributed to the marriage in general, and the farming operation in particular. See Iowa Code § 598.21(1)(e)-(f). The record further reveals that Brian brought substantially more property to the marriage than did Patricia. Under the circumstances presented here, we agree with Brian that it was inequitable for the district court to in effect equally divide the parties' property.
A substantial percentage of his premarital assets was ultimately reinvested into the farming operation.
Before we determine what allocation of property is equitable under the circumstances, we must consider Brian's challenge to the district court's rejection of the Wells Fargo letter. Brian asserts the letter reliably demonstrates an encumbrance on two pieces of farm equipment he holds jointly with another individual, Kevin Grimm. The letter in question is written on Wells Fargo stationary, is addressed to Brian, and contains a signature block of "Scott Durr Business Relationship Manager." The letter provides a loan number and the principal and accrued interest amounts of a "Joint Borrower Loan," and states that while it is assumed Brian and Grimm are each paying fifty percent of the debt, in the case of default each is liable for the full amount. The district court concluded the exhibit was not reliable because it was "undated, does not refer to the collateral, and while the document is on Wells Fargo stationary, the signature block does not identify the signer and the signature is not legible."
Upon review of the record, we share the court's concerns that the letter is undated and does not identify the collateral, particularly as Brian owns three pieces of equipment in common with Grimm, and has a one-half interest in only one of the three — Brian has only a one-third interest in the other two items. Accordingly, we reject this assignment of error.
Turning to the overall property division, we believe Brian credibly established that he had a significant net worth at the time of the parties' marriage which consisted primarily of premarital grain. Brian testified he had $96,000 of grain on hand in December 1996. His testimony is supported by grain tickets which show that he sold grain worth slightly more than $95,000 between the date of the parties' marriage and the time a marital crop of grain could be grown and harvested in the fall of 1997. In addition, Brian's tax returns for 1996 and 1997 show grain sold for those two years in the amount of $82,389 and $91,336, respectively. Finally, Patricia introduced two financial statements into evidence which were created by Brian shortly before the marriage. One financial statement, dated April 6, 1995, indicates Brian had a net worth at that time of approximately $79,000. The other financial statement, dated April 24, 1996, approximately eights months before the parties' marriage, indicates Brian had a net worth of $102,482, including grain on hand worth $58,900. It does not appear that Patricia takes issue with any of the information contained in the financial statements.
The district court expressed skepticism that Brian had $96,000 of grain on hand at the time of the parties' marriage. The court noted that any grain on hand was ultimately "used for the family and the family farm operation through the years of this marriage." The court also noted that Brian's tax returns for 1996 and 1997 showed a loss for those years after payment of expenses. The court determined Brian should receive no credit for any premarital grain.
This would have been before the 1996 crop was harvested.
As we have already mentioned, we do not believe Brian is entitled to a direct setoff for all of his premarital property. However, we do believe equity requires a reduction in the equalization payment Brian was ordered to make to Patricia in view of the significant amount of property Brian brought to this marriage of relatively short duration. Considering all relevant factors, we conclude the $100,000 equalization payment should be reduced to $50,000.
Finally, we address Brian's contention that the court erred in the division of the parties' vehicles. The court awarded Brian a "2001 Chevrolet Silverado pickup" valued at $23,600, and Patricia a "2001 Chevrolet Crew Cab pickup" which had been transferred to Patricia via a temporary order and sold by Patricia prior to the dissolution hearing. Brian asserts these are in fact the same vehicle, and thus he was credited with $23,600 more in property than he actually received. However, Brian does not refer this court to any place in the record which demonstrates the existence of one rather than two vehicles, as is required of him by our rules of procedure. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(1)( d), ( f). Accordingly, we are not bound to consider his claim on appeal. See In re Estate of DeTar, 572 N.W.2d 178, 181 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
While we do on occasion consider such claims as a matter of grace, we do so only to the extent that we can consider the claim without assuming a partisan role and undertaking the party's research and advocacy. See id. Because a review of the appendix and file papers does not conclusively demonstrate the existence of only one vehicle, we decline to consider Brian's claim. We note, however, that even if Brian is correct in his assertion, the record indicates the net value of the 2001 Chevrolet Crew Cab pickup is only a few thousand dollars. If a disparity exists, we do not believe it is inequitable in light of our modification of the property division.
IV. Conclusion.
In light of the significant premarital property Brian brought to the marriage, we modify the district court's decree by reducing the equalization payment Brian was ordered to make to Patricia from $100,000 to $50,000. The remainder of the court's decree is affirmed.
Costs are assessed one-half to each party.