Opinion
No. 2-454 / 01-0607.
Filed June 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, JAMES RICHARDSON, Judge.
Appellant appeals challenging the economic provisions of a decree dissolving his marriage to appellee. AFFIRMED.
Michael Winter, Council Bluffs, for appellant.
Michael Murphy and Aaron Rodenburg of Murphy, Rodenburg Stierman Law Offices, P.C., Council Bluffs, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and HUITINK and HECHT, JJ.
Appellant, Ronald Lynn Hering, appeals challenging the economic provisions of a decree dissolving his marriage to appellee/cross-appellant, Linda Lou Hering. He contends the district court did not (1) correctly consider property he brought to the marriage, and (2) consider the length of the marriage and the contributions he made in setting aside to Linda certain of her gifted and inherited property. Linda denies Ronald's claims, and on cross-appeal contends the district court (1) gave Ronald too much credit for gifted and inherited property, (2) failed to divide the parties' seven-acre homestead, and (3) failed to divide a record player, two dressers and a night stand. We affirm.
Ronald and Linda were married in 1967. Ronald was born in 1941, and Linda in 1947. Both are in good health. Their three children are adults. Two sons are engaged with Ronald in farming and trucking. Ronald has farmed throughout the marriage. In 1981 Linda began working for the U.S. Farm Service Agency where she is currently employed.
Ronald brought property, mainly farm machinery, to the marriage, and it is agreed that both Ronald and Linda inherited property during the marriage. Linda also claims to have received gifts.
Ronald contends in the district court dissolution he received a net value of $470,927.50 and Linda received a net value of $790,217.50.
The district court was not asked to divide all the couple's assets. The farming and trucking operation was incorporated earlier, and the corporation owned trucks, farm equipment, livestock, grain and real estate. The district court concluded the property owned by the corporation included the parties' homestead. Ronald and Linda each owned one half of the stock. Ronald took his half, and Linda sold her half to their two sons. There also were life insurance policies that the parties divided.
Of the balance of the property, the district court (1) set aside to each party property it determined was gifted to or inherited by each, (2) gave Ronald credit for bringing property to the marriage, (3) found the personal items of the household were divided at the time of separation, and (4) reached a division based on values the court determined, which awarded net values of $250,907.50 to each party in the property the court was asked to divide. In ruling on post trial motions, the district court adjusted the final allocation to account for $10,000 to $12,000 in omitted property, and specifically divided certain items of personal property.
Our review is de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. We have a duty to examine the entire record and adjudicate anew rights on the issues properly presented. In re Marriage of Steenhoek, 305 N.W.2d 448, 452 (Iowa 1991). 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).
The parties' assets were accumulated from gifts and inheritances as well as from their joint efforts to accumulate assets and to preserve and enhance the assets gifted and inherited.
Iowa Code section 598.21(1) (2001) states, "the court shall divide all property, except inherited property or gifts received by one party, equitably between the parties. . . ." Section 598.21(2) also provides:
property inherited by either party or gifts received by either party prior to or during the course of the marriage is the property of that party and is not subject to a property division under this section except upon a finding that refusal to divide the property is inequitable to the other party or to the children of the marriage.
Generally, gifts or inheritances received by a party during the marriage are not subject to a property division unless the failure to do so would be inequitable to the other party. In re Marriage of Oler, 451 N.W.2d 9, 10-11 (Iowa Ct.App. 1989). There are a number of factors the courts look to in determining whether inherited property should be divided. See In re Marriage of Thomas, 319 N.W.2d 209, 211 (Iowa 1982). The length of the marriage is also an important factor in considering when gifted or inherited property should be divided. See Oler, 451 N.W.2d at 11.
The partners in the marriage are entitled to a just and equitable share of the property accumulated through their joint efforts. 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. Id. The determining factor is what is fair and equitable in each circumstance. Id. The distribution of the property should be made in consideration of the criteria codified in Iowa Code section 598.21(1). See In re Marriage of Estlund, 344 N.W.2d 276, 280 (Iowa Ct.App. 1983).
We cannot say that the valuations established by the district court are not within the evidence. Our review of the property division made by the district court convinces us the property division is equitable and gives sufficient consideration to property given to both Ronald and Linda.
Linda contends the district court erred in excluding the seven-acre homestead in the division of assets. The district court found the homestead was owned by the corporation, and the parties had agreed they each would receive fifty percent of the stock of the corporation. Linda seems to concede the district court's finding in this regard is correct. The district court was told the parties had agreed to a stock division. The corporation owned the homestead. The corporation stock was divided. There is no error here.
We affirm on all issues. We award no attorney fees. Costs on appeal shall be paid one-half by each party.
AFFIRMED.