Opinion
No. 2-431 / 01-1684.
Filed June 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, JAMES REILLY, Judge.
Linda Handling appeals from district court's decree dissolving the parties' marriage. AFFIRMED.
James McGrath of McGrath McGrath, P.C., Keosauqua, for appellant.
Paul Zingg of Kiple, Denefe, Beaver, Gardner Zingg, L.L.P., Ottumwa, for appellee.
Considered by MAHAN, P.J., and ZIMMER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Linda Handling appeals from the district court's decree dissolving the parties' marriage. On appeal Linda contends (1) the district court erred in failing to award her permanent alimony; (2) the property division was inequitable; and (3) she is entitled to trial and appellate attorney fees. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings. Linda and Larry Handling were married on August 9, 1969. The parties have one child who is twenty-one years old. Linda has worked for K-Mart since 1979 and is currently a department manager. She earns approximately $16,800 per year and receives benefits, which include vacation and a 401(k) plan. She became eligible for company-sponsored health insurance in March 2001. Prior to her employment with K-Mart, she worked as a retail clerk for many years, a seed sorter with Pioneer Seed Company, and a telemarketer for approximately eight years. Linda has had numerous health problems. At the time of trial, she was recovering from surgery to her knees and was receiving temporary disability benefits from K-Mart. She indicated she plans to return to work full time
Larry has worked for John Deere in Ottumwa since 1973. He currently makes approximately $59,000 a year. He also receives company sponsored health insurance, vacation, a 401(k) plan, and a pension. Larry plans to retire from Deere in August 2003. Larry also farms.
Linda filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on October 16, 2000. Larry voluntarily moved out of the marital home pending the resolution of the dissolution proceedings. In its decree, the district court awarded $133,060 in net assets to Linda and $133,059 in net assets to Larry. In addition, the court denied Linda's request for spousal support. The court also required the parties to pay their own attorney's fees. Linda appeals.
In dividing the parties' assets, the court awarded Larry the marital homestead.
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 trial court, especially when considering the credibility of witnesses, but are not bound by them. Iowa R. App. P. 6.14(6)(g).
Alimony. Linda claims she is entitled to alimony for the remainder of her life. Alimony is not an absolute right; an award depends on the circumstances of each particular case. In re Marriage of Kurtt, 561 N.W.2d 385, 387 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). We consider those factors listed in Iowa Code section 598.21(3). In re Marriage of Sychra, 552 N.W.2d 907, 908 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996).
After a careful review of the record, we agree with the decision of the district court. Linda has been employed outside the home throughout the marriage. She is currently a department manager with K-Mart. We recognize that the parties' monthly incomes are not equal. However, Linda has been awarded substantial assets including income-producing properties. In fact, Linda was awarded an eighty-acre farm, which provides her income of approximately $3000 per year. She was also awarded a rental property, which provides her $400 per month in rent. The parties stipulated to an equal division of Larry's retirement benefits prior to trial. We conclude an award of alimony is not justified in this case. Accordingly, we affirm the district court on this issue.
Property Division. 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(1). 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).
Linda contends the property division was inequitable because she was not awarded the marital homestead. We disagree. Larry has contributed extensively to the farm, both through his personal efforts and financially. He was the exclusive operator and manager of the farm business. He likewise assumed all debt related to the homestead, which amounted to $69,102. We therefore find the property distribution by the district court to be fair and equitable.
The marital homestead consisted of a 135 acre farming operation.
Attorney Fees. Ordinarily, an award of attorney fees rests in the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Wessels, 542 N.W.2d 486, 491 (Iowa 1995). An award of attorney fees depends upon the financial circumstances of the parties and their respective ability to pay. Id. We conclude the district court properly considered this issue, and we find no abuse of discretion.
Similarly, an award of appellate attorney fees is not a matter of right, but rests within the court's discretion. In re Marriage of Wood, 567 N.W.2d 680, 684 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). In determining whether to award appellate attorney fees, we 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 decision of the trial court on appeal. Id. We deny Linda's request for appellate attorney fees.
The costs of the appeal are taxed equally to both parties.
AFFIRMED.