Opinion
No. 1-433 / 00-1044.
Filed February 6, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, JOHN A. NAHRA, Judge.
The respondent appeals a district court ruling denying his application to modify the alimony provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Cheryl J. Newport and Stephen W. Newport of Newport Newport, P.L.C., Davenport, for appellant.
Richard W. Farwell and Christopher L. Farwell of Farwell Bruhn, Clinton, for appellee.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Bruce MacArthur appeals from the district court ruling denying his application to modify the alimony provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. He contends the district court erred in concluding he had failed to show a substantial change in circumstances justifying a termination of or reduction in his alimony payments to petitioner. Both parties request an award of appellate attorney fees. We affirm as modified.
Bruce and Karla MacArthur were married twenty-four years before divorcing in 1994. In the dissolution decree, Bruce was ordered to pay Karla $1500 in alimony per month until her death or remarriage. In August 1999, Bruce filed an application to modify the alimony provisions of their decree, claiming Karla was cohabitating with her "soul mate," Roger, and that Roger was providing for virtually all of her support. The district court denied Bruce's application. Bruce has appealed. Both parties request an award of appellate attorney fees.
We review the district court's order de novo. See In re Marriage of Rietz, 585 N.W.2d 226, 229 (Iowa 1998). However, we accord the district court considerable latitude in making the determination to modify a dissolution decree and will disturb its ruling only where there has been a failure to do equity. Id. A modification is appropriate when the party seeking the modification proves by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a substantial change in circumstances. Id. In order to warrant modification, the change in circumstances must be permanent and substantial. Id.
Upon de novo review, we find modification is warranted. Karla has cohabited with Roger since June 1996. Roger provides Karla with a home and assists her with bills and grocery expenses. He also pays for Karla's vacations. Additionally, Karla's income has increased from $2000 per year to $8000 per year while her health insurance costs have decreased from $280-$330 per month to $90 per month. As a result, we find there has been a substantial change in circumstance that warrants modification of Karla's alimony award. Accordingly, we reduce Karla's alimony to $750 per month. We award no appellate attorney fees. Costs of this appeal are taxed to Bruce.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
MILLER, J., concurs; VOGEL, P.J., specially concurs.
I concur with the result reached by the majority, in that the evidence demonstrating Karla's cohabitation with Roger established a substantial change of circumstances. The burden then shifted to Karla to show why she should continue to receive spousal support from Bruce. In re Marriage of Ales, 592 N.W.2d 698, 702-03 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999). Our modification is based on Karla's demonstration of an ongoing financial need, albeit reduced from the amount ordered in the original decree.