Opinion
No. 1-683 / 01-0051.
Filed January 28, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, MARK D. CLEVE, Judge.
Brenda Knoche appeals and Loren Knoche cross-appeals from an order entered upon Brenda's application to modify the parties' dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.
Dennis D. Jasper, Bettendorf, for appellant.
Morton A. Teitle and Justin A. Teitle of the Teitle Law Offices, Davenport, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Brenda Knoche appeals a district court order granting her petition for modification of the alimony provisions of the parties' divorce decree. Brenda contends the district court erred in failing to grant a greater increase in her alimony award. She also requests appellate attorney fees. On cross appeal, Loren argues the district court erred in increasing his alimony obligation from $700 to $800 per month absent a showing of a substantial change in circumstances and in converting a five-year term of rehabilitative alimony into traditional alimony.
Upon our de novo review of the record, we find the district court properly increased both the amount and duration of Loren's alimony obligation. See Iowa R. App. P. 4 (equity cases reviewed de novo). The district court's expectation at the time of the divorce decree was that Brenda would sufficiently recover from her depression and become self-sufficient. However, the record indicates and we find that Brenda's mental health has declined and the court's original expectations of self-sufficiency will not be realized. As a result, Brenda faces a real prospect of increasing medical bills without sufficient income to pay them. Brenda has therefore met her burden of showing a material and substantial change in circumstances justifying modification. See In re Marriage of Rietz, 585 N.W.2d 226, 229 (Iowa 1998) (party seeking modification must demonstrate substantial and material change in circumstances since divorce decree); In re Marriage of Ales, 592 N.W.2d 698, 702 (Iowa Ct.App. 1999) (setting forth factors considered in determining whether there is a substantial change in circumstances).
We also agree with the district court's conclusion that maintaining the divorce decree's award of rehabilitative alimony in light of Brenda's declining health and financial position, when balanced with Loren's financial security, would be inequitable. See In re Marriage of Wessels, 542 N.W.2d 486, 489 (Iowa 1995) (type of alimony may be modified in rare situation where later occurrences render initial decree grossly unfair, in contravention of fairness and equity). Brenda is unable to maintain employment. Although Loren claimed in the divorce proceeding that his income in 1995 was $8961, in 1999 he made $72,600. We also note the amount of alimony awarded fairly balances Brenda's needs with Loren's ability to pay. SeeIowa Code § 598.21(3) (1999) (enumerating factors to be considered in determining amount of alimony, including parties' respective needs and abilities to pay). The district court decision is affirmed in its entirety.
We award Brenda $1000 in appellate attorney's fees. See In re Marriage of Cooper, 524 N.W.2d 204, 207 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994) (in evaluation request for 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 trial court's decision on appeal).
AFFIRMED.