Opinion
No. 3-241 / 02-1071.
Filed June 25, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Patrick R. Grady, Judge.
Kevin Castle appeals that portion of a dissolution decree awarding his former wife alimony, contending the amount and duration are excessive. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Brent Oleson, and Sherry Schulte of Howes Law Firm, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Sharon Mellon of Mellon Spies, Iowa City, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Kevin Castle appeals that portion of a dissolution decree awarding his former wife permanent alimony. He contends the amount and duration are excessive. We affirm as modified.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Kevin and Deirdre married in 1982 and had two children before divorcing in 2002. At the time of the dissolution proceedings, Kevin was forty-three years old and Deirdre was fifty-three years old. Both attended college before the marriage but quit before obtaining a degree.
For the entire marriage, Kevin worked as a sales representative for a financial services company. His earnings were commission-based and, in the five years preceding the dissolution proceedings, fluctuated from a low of $97,463 to a high of $207,708. For child support purposes, the district court adopted an annual income figure of $152,000.
Deirdre was working at a factory when the parties married. She later worked briefly at a boutique and a department store before obtaining a job at a mall as the marketing director. She was soon promoted to general manager of the mall. She worked at the mall for a total of fourteen years, the last three as general manager. Her highest annual earnings were $54,000.
Following trial, the district court equally divided the parties' property, ordered Kevin to pay Deirdre child support for the child who was still a minor, and awarded Deirdre $2500 per month in traditional or permanent spousal support until death or remarriage. Kevin only challenges the spousal support award.
II. Spousal Support
Kevin contends the district court should have awarded Deirdre $1000 per month in rehabilitative alimony for two years rather than $2500 per month in traditional or permanent alimony.
While our review of this issue is de novo, we afford district courts wide latitude in making alimony determinations and will disturb their rulings only when there has been a failure to do equity. In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 257 (Iowa 1996).
Traditional or permanent alimony is payable for life or for so long as a dependent spouse is incapable of self-support. In re Marriage of Grady-Woods, 577 N.W.2d 851, 854 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998); In re Marriage of Hettinga, 574 N.W.2d 920, 922 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). Rehabilitative alimony serves to support an economically dependent spouse through a limited period of education and retraining, with the goal of establishing self-sufficiency. Id.
We agree with Kevin that Deirdre should not receive traditional or permanent alimony. Although this was a long marriage, Deirdre was employed for most of the marriage. She had a successful career as general manager of a mall. By her own admission, she "was pretty much responsible for all of the day-to-day operations. . . ." This included oversight of "the accounting, the marketing, the security, janitorial, any sort of mechanical upgrades. . . ." While her earnings never matched Kevin's, she was clearly capable of self-support, the hallmark for determining whether a traditional alimony award is appropriate. Id. Additionally, we believe her property settlement, which included a significant portion of Kevin's retirement benefits, will allow her to enjoy a standard of living comparable to that which she enjoyed during the marriage. Hettinga, 574 N.W.2d at 922.
Notwithstanding Deirdre's past success in the workplace, Kevin concedes she would need "some small period of adjustment to make contacts and get herself established in the real estate field." We agree with this assessment. Accordingly, we modify the district court's spousal support award to provide for rehabilitative alimony in the amount of $2500 per month for five years.
III. Appellate Attorney Fees
Deirdre seeks appellate attorney fees. Such an award rests within our sound discretion. See Benson, 545 N.W.2d at 258. Kevin's appeal has merit and the record suggests Deirdre has the financial means to pay her own attorney fees. For these reasons, we decline to order Kevin to pay a portion of Deirdre's attorney fees.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Mahan, P.J., concurs; Miller, J. concurs in part and dissents in part.
I would also affirm the trial court with modification, but with a somewhat different modification. I therefore respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.
As correctly noted by the trial court, an alimony award will differ in amount and duration according to the purpose it was designed to serve. See In re Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59, 62-64 (Iowa 1989). The trial court concluded that the facts justified traditional (permanent) alimony of $2500 per month. On our de novo review the majority has concluded that the facts instead justify rehabilitative alimony of $2500 per month for five years. I believe, however, that the facts instead justify a combination of rehabilitative alimony and permanent alimony, but with the permanent alimony at a lower amount than ordered by the trial court. Implicit in this belief is a conclusion that an award of alimony may serve more than one of the purposes recognized in our case law.
The parties were married for twenty years. Kevin has an established pre-tax annual income of $152,000. Deirdre's highest income as a mall manager was $54,000 per year, which included salary and bonus. She achieved that level of income only briefly before the mall changed ownership in 1999, leaving her unemployed for a time. She subsequently obtained her real estate license and has been working to establish herself in residential real estate sales. Although she hopes to eventually achieve an income approaching the income she earned as a mall manager, at the time the parties' marriage was dissolved she was earning about $30,000 per year.
Deirdre needs financial assistance during a period of time reasonably necessary for her to become re-educated, gain experience, and become established, in her new career in real estate. Therefore, as determined by the majority, an award of rehabilitative alimony is justified. However, an award of permanent alimony is justified by the twenty-year length of the parties' marriage, the very large difference in their earning capacities and incomes, and the fact it does not appear feasible that Deirdre will be able to become self-supporting at a standard of living reasonably comparable to the standard she enjoyed during the twenty-year marriage. However, in view of her apparent earning capacity, I believe that after a period of time reasonably necessary for her to become re-educated, gain experience, and become established, in her new endeavor the amount of permanent support ordered by the trial court is excessive.
I would modify the district court's decree to provide for spousal support of $2500 per month for a period of five years, that being a combination of rehabilitative and traditional alimony, to be followed by traditional alimony of $1,000 per month thereafter.