Opinion
No. 0-537 / 99-1934
Filed October 25, 2000
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, William J. Pattinson, Judge.
Lois Bock appeals and Dennis Bock cross-appeals from the economic provisions of the parties' dissolution decree.
AFFIRMED.Loren A. Nalean of Nalean Nalean, Boone, for appellant.
Bruce L. Anderson of Quinn, Doran Anderson, Boone, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Streit and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Lois Bock claims her ex-husband should be required to pay her more alimony. Because we find the district court's alimony award was equitable, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Dennis and Lois's thirty-year marriage was dissolved in 1999. At the time of the dissolution, Dennis was forty-nine years old and in good health. He was employed as an administrator of a retirement home and had an annual salary of approximately $90,000. Lois was fifty years old and had little short-term memory. (She sustained this permanent disability in 1973 when she suffered a ruptured cerebral aneurysm.) Lois was employed part-time as a teacher's assistant, and her earning capacity, as stipulated by the parties, was approximately $10,000 per year.
Dennis and Lois's net worth was over one million dollars. Most of their wealth was held in the form of retirement and investment accounts. The district court awarded Lois approximately half of these assets and the parties' marital residence, an unencumbered home valued at $135,000. The court also awarded Lois alimony in the amount of $1000 per month for one year, $1100 per month for the next year, and $1200 per month for the following years until Dennis's sixty-fifth birthday. At that time, the alimony is to be reduced to $600 per month.
Lois appeals, claiming the alimony is unfairly low. Dennis cross-appeals, claiming the parties' marital residence should be divided between them if Lois's alimony award is increased.
II. Standard of Review.
We review de novo Lois's challenge to the district court's alimony award. See In re Marriage of Clinton, 579 N.W.2d 835, 838 (Iowa App. 1998).
III. The Merits.
Alimony is not an absolute right; an award depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. In re Marriage of Kurtt, 561 N.W.2d 385, 387 (Iowa App. 1997). The discretionary award of alimony is made after considering those factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.21(3). In re Marriage of Sychra, 552 N.W.2d 907, 908 (Iowa App. 1996). Among those factors are the length of the parties' marriage, the parties' ages and health, the parties' earning capacities, the parties' 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. Iowa Code § 598.21(3) (1999).
Given these factors, Lois received an appropriate alimony award. The award, when added to Lois's potential investment income and the $10,000 she can earn as a part-time employee, should provide her with approximately $30,000 of gross annual income. This does not leave Lois with a vast amount of disposable income. She should, however, be able to have a standard of living substantially similar to her previous one. See In re Marriage of Hayne, 334 N.W.2d 347, 351 (Iowa App. 1983) ("[T]he spouse with the lesser earning capacity is entitled to be supported, for a reasonable time, in a manner as closely resembling the standards existing during the marriage as possible, to the extent that that is possible without destroying the right of the party providing the income to enjoy at least a comparable standard of living as well."). According to Dennis, the parties lived on approximately $52,000 per year during their marriage. The district court also noted "the facts in this case do not indicate Dennis and Lois lived an extravagant or a flamboyant lifestyle. They lived comfortably, but not frugally." Lois should be able to maintain this lifestyle on $30,000 of gross annual income.
$14,400 of alimony ($1200 per month as of November 2001 x 12 months) + $6000 of investment income (approximately half of the parties' investment income reported on their 1998 federal tax return) + $10,000 (Lois's stipulated earning capacity) = $30,400 of gross annual income.
Lois claims her annual living expenses total $32,700. This estimate is a bit high, especially given it includes annual transportation expenses of $7440, i.e., 24,000 miles at $.31 per mile. Nothing in the record shows Lois drives her car 24,000 miles per year.
The alimony award should not be viewed in isolation from the property the district court awarded to Lois at the time of the parties' dissolution. See In re Marriage of Hardy, 539 N.W.2d 729, 732 (Iowa App. 1995) ("We consider property division and alimony together in evaluating their individual sufficiency."). Pursuant to the court's dissolution decree, Lois received well over $400,000 of investment assets. She also received an unencumbered home valued at $135,000. The award was equitable under these circumstances.
Lois contends the alimony award does not alleviate the significant economic disadvantages she now faces. Lois is particularly concerned with the disparity between the parties' respective postdissolution incomes. As we stated above, Lois is entitled to enjoy-if possible-a standard of living comparable to the standard existing during the parties' marriage. See Hayne, 334 N.W.2d at 351. Because this standard has been assured, Dennis is not required to provide her additional support even if his total income greatly exceeds her total income. See id. (holding an alimony award was adequate where the payor's income substantially exceeded the award). Dennis is entitled, after all, to enjoy the fruits of his labors. See id.
We affirm the district court; we need not address Dennis's cross-appeal.