Opinion
No. 2-198 / 01-0964
Filed September 11, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, L. Vern Robinson, Judge.
Wife appeals alimony and child support provisions of dissolution decree. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
Matthew J. Brandes and Elizabeth V. Croco of Simmons, Perrine, Albright Ellwood, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
John W. Hayek of Hayek, Hayek, Brown Moreland, L.L.P., Iowa City, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Tamara Miller appeals the spousal support and child support provisions of the dissolution of marriage decree from her former husband, Randy Miller. We affirm, as modified, and remand for a recalculation of the child support obligation.
Background Facts and Proceedings . The parties' marriage and divorce, followed by cohabitation and a common law marriage, resulted in an approximate nineteen-year relationship. During this time, Randy developed a unique craft and took over the family monument business, turning it into a highly valuable asset. Tamara has a college education, but spent much of her adult life raising the couple's two children and working to promote the family business. The trial court divided the couple's property, awarding each net assets in excess of $276,000. In addition, the couple's marital residence and Colorado condo were ordered to be sold and, after allowing Tamara $55,000 as compensation for inherited property, the remaining net proceeds were to be divided equally. The stock in the monument business, pledged against substantial debt, was also to be divided equally. The trial court awarded Tamara $2,000 per month for twenty-four months as rehabilitative alimony. It placed primary care of the parties' younger child with Randy, and ordered Tamara to pay $368 per month in child support. The court then set off the two support obligations, resulting in a net monthly payment to Tamara of $1,632.
At the time of the dissolution the couple's older child was a nineteen-year-old college student.
Scope of Review . We review de novo. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4.
Alimony . Tamara is challenging the amount and duration of alimony against the backdrop of what she views as an inequitable property division. While the trial court's division of assets and liabilities appears to result in nearly an equal award of net assets, Tamara's major complaint is that Randy received the income producing properties while she received non-income producing assets. This she claims, leaves her with little cash flow for paying her living expenses and, with a substantially lower earning capacity, she views the decree as failing to do equity as between the parties. She claims to need spousal support of $3,750 a month for ten years to meet her living expenses and become self-supporting at a comfortable level.
We agree Tamara's earning capacity and current income of roughly $20,000 per year, with no benefits, pales in comparison to Randy's demonstrated earning capacity and current income of $125,000 per year plus generous benefits. The largest asset Tamara received in the decree, Lot 5 in Scott Addition, is an undeveloped commercial lot that had been for sale for over two years at the time of trial. Although the value was set at $250,000, the testimony both from an officer of the bank and from Randy, as supported by his financial affidavit, indicated the property to be mortgaged as part of a "master loan" with Iowa State Bank Trust Company. There was no testimony on the part of the bank which would indicate its willingness to reduce its security on its loan so that Lot 5 could be sold free and clear of the mortgage debt, assuming a purchaser could be located.
Accordingly, Tamara's argument for increased alimony is supported by the reality she may be asset rich, but is cash poor. As she argued, to "untangle this financial knot" will take time, and no ready solution was presented at trial to put cash in her pocket. Conversely, to increase Randy's support obligation will not seriously impair his ability to continue his business and service the debt on his various obligations. See In re Marriage of Stark, 542 N.W.2d 260, 262 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). As such, we find equity is better served by increasing Tamara's rehabilitative spousal support to $3,000 per month and extending its duration for five years from May 1, 2001. See In re Marriage of Geil, 509 N.W.2d 738, 742 (Iowa 1993) (noting that, in marriage of long duration, award of both alimony and a substantially equal property distribution may be appropriate, especially where there is a great disparity in earning capacity).
Child Support . The trial court stated it was basing child support on a number of factors, including Tamara's income of $20,800 per year plus $24,000 per year in alimony, and Randy's income of $125,000 per year reduced by annual alimony payments of $24,000. The court noted, however, that the exact amount of each party's net monthly income could only be "roughly calculated," as each would be receiving "interest income, dividend income, or rental income after the property is divided and/or sold." Based upon the unspecified net estimates, it found Tamara's child support obligation was $566 per month, which was then reduced by 35%, to $368 per month, in order to reflect the amount of time the minor child spends in Tamara's care.
Tamara contends the trial court failed to specify the figures it relied on to make these calculations and that it relied on speculative and/or erroneous figures when considering the impact of dividend, interest, and rental incomes. She seems to urge a recalculation of support based on the parties' gross salaries, the alimony payments, and the rental income Randy receives from the commercial properties he was awarded in the dissolution decree. Randy acknowledges the trial court's inability to factor into net income the many changing investments of the parties and concedes child support should be reduced. However, he contends the support should be calculated using only the parties' agreed upon annual gross salaries and the alimony payments, which he estimates would reduce Tamara's child support obligation to $322.82 per month.
Calculating child support under the complex finances of these parties is not a straightforward task. We understand the trial court's hesitation to specify income any further than it did, as commingling of investments and pending sales at the time of trial made it difficult to ascertain a clear picture of what income would likely be generated from the various assets. However, the court's lack of specificity creates difficulties upon appeal.
While it is clear the trial court based the child support obligation on more than the parties' yearly earnings and the impact of the alimony award, we are unable to ascertain which of several possible additional factors led to the current support amount. The dividend, interest and rental income generally referenced by the trial court includes quantifiable as well as speculative or uncertain income sources. While the former may be considered when calculating child support, the latter may not. See In re Marriage of Nelson, 570 N.W.2d 103, 105 (Iowa 1997).
Even though we review the trial court's decision de novo, we must necessarily know the basis for its decision if our review is to have meaning. See generally Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.904(1). Because we cannot ascertain the basis for the trial court's calculation with any certainty,an attempt by this court to determine current income risks further error and an unrealistic setting of the child support obligation. We therefore remand to the trial court to receive evidence on the current income of the parties, allowing Randy to subtract spousal support from his gross income, for so long as he is required to pay spousal support.
Attorney Fees . Tamara also requests appellate attorney fees. Such an award is discretionary and made in consideration of the needs of the requesting party, the other party's ability to pay, and whether the requesting party was obligated to defend the district court's decision on appeal. In re Marriage of Davis, 608 N.W.2d 766, 773 (Iowa 2000). Applying these considerations in light of the facts in this case, we award Tamara $3,000 in appellate attorney fees. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Randy.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.