Opinion
No. 2-547 / 01-1594
Filed October 30, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Arthur E. Gamble, Judge.
Rhonda Ash appeals from the district court's decree dissolving the parties' marriage. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Alexander Johnson and James Gilliam of Brown, Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville Schoenebaum, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Vicki Copeland of Wilcox, Polking, Gerkin, Schwarzkopf Copeland, P.C., Jefferson, for appellee.
Heard by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Rhonda Ash appeals from the district court's decree dissolving the parties' marriage. She contends the district court erred when it: (1) limited the amount of alimony to $1500 per month for five years; (2) failed to make an equitable division of the parties' property; (3) incorrectly determined Eric's earning capacity for child support purposes; and (4) established the visitation schedule. Rhonda asks for appellate attorney fees. We affirm as modified.
Background Facts and Proceedings. Eric and Rhonda Ash were married in 1991. Eric and Rhonda have two children: Allison, born May 21, 1995; and Emily, born August 7, 1999.
Eric graduated from University of Iowa Medical School in 1995. He works as a physician for Heartland Family Health and at the emergency room in Perry, Iowa. Eric earns approximately $180,000 per year. Rhonda graduated from Capri Cosmetology College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa in 1987. She worked as a stylist until six weeks prior to the birth of the couple's first child. Rhonda has not been employed outside the home since and she has allowed her cosmetology license to lapse. At the time of trial, she anticipated returning to school to enroll in computer classes.
A decree of dissolution of marriage was granted on August 8, 2001. Eric and Rhonda were awarded joint legal custody of the parties' two children with primary physical care granted to Rhonda. The district court ordered Eric to pay Rhonda $2000 per month in child support for two children and $1400 per month in child support when only one child is eligible. The court also ordered him to pay $1500 per month in alimony for a period of five years. The court divided the parties' property with Eric receiving a total of $53,507.78 and Rhonda receiving a total of $53,440.42. Rhonda appeals.
Standard of Review. Dissolution of marriage decrees are reviewed in equity. In re Marriage of Knickerbocker, 601 N.W.2d 48, 50 (Iowa 1999). Our standard of review is therefore de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4. In such cases, we examine the entire record and adjudicate anew rights on the issues properly presented. In re Marriage of Beecher, 582 N.W.2d 510, 512-13 (Iowa 1998). In doing so, we give weight to the fact-findings of the district court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by them. Iowa R.App.P. 6.14(6)( g).
Alimony. Alimony is not an absolute right; an award depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. In re Marriage of Eastman, 538 N.W.2d 874, 876 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995). The discretionary award of alimony is made after considering those factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.21(3) (2001). 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' earnings 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). We consider property division and alimony together in evaluating their individual sufficiency. In re Marriage of O'Rourke, 547 N.W.2d 864, 866 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). The court may consider the amount of child support ordered under the decree when determining if spousal support is to be awarded and, if so, the appropriate amount of the award. In re Marriage of Will, 489 N.W.2d 394, 400 (Iowa 1992).
Rhonda was awarded $1500 per month in rehabilitative and reimbursement alimony for a period of five years. She claims the alimony award should be increased to $2377 per month for ten years based upon her capital contribution to Eric's advanced degree and the fact she needs time to obtain a bachelor's degree.
We find that an equitable accommodation of the parties' respective earning capacities, needs, and standards of living requires a modification of the district court's alimony award. Accordingly, we modify the district court's alimony award to $1500 per month for a period of ten years. We find this award will provide Rhonda with adequate support when combined with child support and property division.
Property Division. Rhonda contends the property division was inequitable to her. The partners in a marriage are entitled to a just and equitable share of the property accumulated through their joint efforts. In re Marriage of Bonnette, 584 N.W.2d 713, 714 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). Equitable distribution does not necessarily mean an equal division of property, nor does it mean a percentage division of the property. Id. In making this assessment, we consider the factors set forth in Iowa Code section 598.21. The determining factor is what is fair and equitable in each circumstance. In re Marriage of Russell, 473 N.W.2d 244, 246 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991). The district court granted Rhonda $53,440.42 and Eric $53,507.78 in marital assets. We find the district court's property distribution equitable in light of the modified alimony award.
Child Support. Rhonda claims the district court erred in calculating Eric's child support obligation given the fact he is in the discretionary category of the child support guidelines. Specifically, she contends the child support award should be increased to reflect the court's property distribution, alimony award, and the standard of living she had grown accustomed to during the marriage. We have reviewed the district court's child support award in light of the other financial aspects of this case and conclude the district court properly set Eric's child support obligation.
Visitation. Rhonda contends the visitation schedule is too uncertain and inflexible, thus not in the children's best interests. We disagree. In establishing visitation rights, our governing consideration is the best interests of the child. In re Marriage of Stepp, 485 N.W.2d 846, 849 (Iowa Ct.App. 1992). Generally, liberal visitation rights are in the child's best interests. Id. We conclude the district court fashioned a workable solution in this case.
Attorney Fees. Rhonda requests attorney fees on appeal. An award of attorney fees is not a matter of right, but rests within the court's discretion and the parties' financial positions. In re Marriage of Courtade, 560 N.W.2d 36, 38 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). "We are to consider the needs of the party making the request, the ability of the other party to pay, and whether the party making the request was obligated to defend the district court's decision on appeal." Id. Based on the facts of this case, we determine Eric should pay $1000 toward Rhonda's appellate attorney fees.