Opinion
No. 2-627 / 01-1851.
Filed December 30, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, DAVID REMLEY, Judge.
Kenneth Ingalls appeals the provisions of alimony and property division in the parties' divorce decree. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Lori Klockau of Bray Klockau, P.L.C., Iowa City, for appellant.
Sharon Mellon of Mellon Spies, Iowa City, for appellee.
Considered by HARRIS, SNELL and BROWN, Senior Judges.*
Senior Judges assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2001).
This appeal arises from the decision dissolving the marriage of Kenneth Morton Ingalls, petitioner-appellee, and Paula Ann Ingalls, respondent-appellant. Issues raised concern division of property and alimony.
The parties in this matter were married for thirty-three years. At trial time Kenneth was fifty-four years old and Paula was fifty-three years old. No children were born to the marriage. Kenneth has a B.A. degree and has a career as a sixth grade schoolteacher, coaches volleyball and golf, and works as a school bus driver. Paula earned her B.S. degree in elementary education and has had employment as a secretary, schoolteacher and guidance counselor. Kenneth's projected gross income is $45,112; Paula's is $28,277.
The parties' primary asset is their home. In 1976, they purchased a home for $23,000 that later sold for $38,000. Using the proceeds, they bought a home for $95,000, now worth about $130,000. Their net equity in the home is $77,000. Many other assets were divided by mutual consent or by court order about which no dispute remains.
The health of the parties bears on the court's decision. Kenneth has had good health over the years but had triple bypass surgery in October 2000. His recovery has been uneventful. Paula has had numerous debilitating medical problems over the years. She has had many major surgeries over her lifetime including one hundred hospitalizations, fifty of which were in the past ten years. She suffers from clinical depression, has a dissociative disorder resulting in her losing track of time or even days. Sometimes, she finds herself still at school at 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning without remembering that people had left at 5:00 p.m. In order to hide this problem she keeps a change of clothing at school. These health problems have contributed or caused her to have thirty employment changes in thirty years.
Our review of the issues involved in this appeal is de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4; In re Marriage of Wagner, 604 N.W.2d 605, 608 (Iowa 2000). The parties are entitled to a just and equitable share of the property accumulated though their joint efforts. In re Marriage of Miller, 552 N.W.2d 460, 463 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996).
The trial court awarded the home to Paula with the provision that she pay Kenneth $22,349. Payment would be required upon the first to occur: her death, remarriage, September 1, 2011 or refinancing the home. Paula has the right to pay Kenneth the $22,349 owed at anytime.
The court credited Paula with $2000, classified as gifted and inherited money received from her mother and the estate of her sister. Paula claims that the court did not consider the factors enumerated in In re Marriage of Liebich, 547 N.W.2d 844, 850 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996). She believes that in applying those factors she should be awarded more money. From 1978 to 1999, Paula's mother gave Paula money every year amounting to $35,000. Paula testified that these amounts were deposited in their joint bank account and used to defray household expenses and credit card debt.
Paula asks that she be credited with $25,000 instead of $2000 received during the year before the parties' separation. Of this sum, $17,000 came from a settlement of the wrongful death claim of her sister. She joins this claim with an assertion that she should not have to pay Kenneth $22,349 in property division of the home because of her substantial contributions to the marriage, her special health needs, or because the gifted property to her was not properly recognized.
We note that the gifted property was made to Paula, not to Paula and Kenneth. This was by design of her mother. Kenneth's relationship with Paula's family was cold or non-existent. He delivered Paula to family gatherings and went elsewhere. Paula, however, never treated the money as hers alone. She deposited the sums in a joint bank account and used the money for joint expenses. Although joint ownership is not controlling, there is little evidence that Paula intended to segregate her gifted money as hers alone. See In re Marriage of Harberts, 492 N.W.2d 435, 437 (Iowa Ct.App. 1992). Moreover, expenditures made from this money enhanced the value of the home and is represented by the $2000 set off to Paula. Also, other expenditures are retained by Paula, e.g., landscaping, a gazebo, large screen television, cherry entertainment center, computer, printer, computer desk and a $5000 bank account. Paula claims that this spending was Kenneth's doing but the record shows Paula participated or acquiesced in it. In any event, the gifted monies no longer exist, yet, rebound to Paula's benefit included in the household furnishings. We find the decision on gifted money is correct.
We also find the decision regarding the home equity division is appropriate. While Paula occupies the home, Kenneth's equity is tied up in the home. His financial situation is poor resulting in his giving up an apartment costing $625 a month and moving to his mother's mobile home where he pays only $210 a month lot rent. Kenneth is also responsible for paying the debt on the 1994 Honda awarded to Paula. Ken received the 1996 Honda subject to his paying off the debt on it.
The trial court looked twice at the alimony issue. Initially, Kenneth was ordered to pay alimony to Paula of $400 per month increasing to $640 per month when Paula's car loan is paid off. Responding to a motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2), the court made the following changes. This was to address the tax consequences that the court overlooked.
Alimony was fixed at $600 per month, increasing to $800 per month when the loan on Paula's car is paid. Provision was made for alimony reduction after Kenneth retires and receives social security.
Kenneth argues that the alimony is excessive and should be fixed at $300 per month until Paula remarries, dies, attains the age of sixty-two or Kenneth dies, whichever first occurs. He points out that his net income of $2487 is only $828 more than Paula's at $1659. He asserts that her projected monthly expenses of $3989 are unrealistic as compared to his at $2361. There is some merit to this argument. Our review leads us to conclude that the court's original assessment of need and ability to pay of the parties was correct. Property divisions and alimony must be considered together to evaluate their individual sufficiency. In re Marriage of Griffin, 356 N.W.2d 606, 608 (Iowa Ct.App. 1984). Accordingly, we modify paragraph twelve of the ruling on respondent's 1.904(2) motion to provide that Kenneth shall pay alimony of $400 per month, increasing to $640 per month, all other provisions to remain the same.
Paula asks that we strike the provision requiring her to pay Kenneth his share of the home equity of $22,349 if she refinances the home. She notes that the courts have long been against entanglements after a dissolution. See In re Marriage of Mentel, 359 N.W.2d 505, 506-07 (Iowa Ct.App. 1984). This requirement, she asserts, impedes her ability to manage her assets after the dissolution.
Kenneth correctly responds that the asset of the home is not hers alone. If Paula refinances the home, she should be required to pay Kenneth the amount awarded to him so that he can manage his money. See In re Marriage of Siglin, 555 N.W.2d 846, 850 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996).
The trial court thoroughly considered the issues in this case and rendered a comprehensive and well reasoned opinion.
Court costs are assessed equally to the parties. They shall pay their own appellate attorney fees.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.