Opinion
No. 2-353 / 01-0785
Filed September 11, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lyon County, Frank B. Nelson, Judge.
Petitioner appeals the division of inherited property and alimony award provisions in the parties' dissolution decree. AFFIRMED.
Bradley De Jong, Orange City, for appellant.
Randy Waagmeester of Waagmeester Law Office, P.L.C., Rock Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by Eisenhauer, P.J., and Habhab, and Snell, Senior Judges.
Senior Judges assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2001).
This appeal presents issues arising out of the marriage dissolution of David A. Naatjes, petitioner-appellant and Diane K. Naatjes, respondent-appellee. The two issues involve property settlement and alimony. We affirm the district court.
Our review of these issues is de novo. In re Marriage of Geil, 509 N.W.2d 738, 740 (Iowa 1993). We give weight to the trial court's findings but are not bound by them. In re Marriage of Steenhoek, 305 N.W.2d 448, 452 (Iowa 1981).
The first issue appealed by David involves property inherited by Diane. In 1987, Diane inherited from her father, Adolph Schroeder, an undivided one-third interest in eighty acres of farmland in Lyon County. In the estate proceedings it was valued at $80,000. In 1985, Diane inherited from her uncle, Henry C.H. Schroeder, an undivided one-seventh interest in forty acres of farmland also in Lyon County. The forty acres was inherited subject to a life estate; Diane has received no income from it. In the estate proceedings, the forty acres' valuation was $44,000. Considerable appreciation occurred during the years so that at time of trial, both tracks of land were valued at $2850 per acre. As part of the property settlement, the trial court awarded both tracks of farmland to Diane as a non-marital asset. Also, David was awarded as a non-marital asset a lot in Alford, Iowa, given to him by his aunt. David contends the farmland is a marital asset in which he should share the appreciation of $62,998.
This is a long-term marriage, the parties having been married May 6, 1972. Three children, now adults, were born of the marriage. The length of marriage is a factor of consideration in equitably dividing the property. David also points to an improvement on the farmland in that he made improvements to a hog building used by him in raising hogs.
The Iowa law provides that inherited property is not the subject of property division unless it would be inequitable to not divide the property. Iowa Code § 598.21(2) (1999). In the case, In Marriage of Fall, we set out the factors to be looked at in deciding whether to divide inherited property. The court said:
As noted, the requirement to set aside to a party the property which has thus been inherited or received as a gift is not absolute. Division may nevertheless occur to avoid injustice. A number of factors might bear on a claim that property should be divided under this exception. These include:
(1) contributions of the parties toward the property, its care, preservation or improvement;
(2) the existence of any independent close relationship between the donor or testator and the spouse of the one to whom the property was given or devised;
(3) separate contributions by the parties to their economic welfare to whatever extent those contributions preserve the property for either of them;
(4) any special needs of either party;
(5) any other matter which would render it plainly unfair to a spouse or child to have the property set aside for the exclusive enjoyment of the donee or devisee.
Other matters such as the length of the marriage or the length of time the property was held after it was devised or given, though not independent factors, may indirectly bear on the question for their effect on the listed factors.In re Marriage of Fall, 593 N.W.2d 164, 166 (Iowa Ct. App. 1999).
We find as did the trial court that David's claim shows little support to satisfy the factors that would permit David's sharing in the appreciated value of the farmland. The improvements to the hog facility were made for his own benefit. He made no significant contribution to this property that benefited the parties' economic welfare. There was no special relationship between David and Diane's benefactors. The case relied on by David, In re Marriage of Geil, 509 N.W.2d 738 (Iowa 1993), is of little persuasion. In Geil, the husband devoted substantial effort to the farm's production and maintenance, unlike the situation involving Diane's inherited land that produced cash rent. Id. at 741. We find the facts and the law support the award of the farmland to Diane.
The second issue appealed by David is the award of alimony to Diane. The court awarded $300 per month until Diane reached the age of sixty-five, dies, marries, or cohabitates with a member of the opposite sex. Alimony awards depend on the circumstances of each case. In re Marriage of Fleener, 247 N.W.2d 219, 220 (Iowa 1976). Those factors applying are codified in Iowa Code section 598.21(3) (1999).
Both parties have been employed during the marriage. David works as a welder and earned $28,592 in 2000. Because of economic turndown, he testified that his earnings would decline in 2001. Diane works as city clerk for Alford, Iowa, and part-time for a company in Sheldon, Iowa. In 2000, she grossed $8620.
In the property settlement David received net assets of $92,747 while Diane received $67,740. To better equalize this division, the court ordered David to pay Diane an additional $12,000.
The disparity in earnings of these parties justifies an alimony award to Diane. We find the amount of $300 per month as ordered by the trial court is proper.
Costs assessed to appellant.
AFFIRMED.