Opinion
No. 3-588 / 03-0015
Filed October 15, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Richard Morr, Judge.
Penny Slings appeals the district court's dissolution decree awarding spousal support and a property settlement to her husband, Arthur. AFFIRMED.
Anjela Shutts of Whitfield Eddy, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.
Lee Walker of Walker, Knopf Billingsley, Newton, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Arthur and Penny Slings obtained a divorce. As part of the dissolution decree, the district court ordered Penny to pay Arthur alimony in the amount of $500 per month for Arthur's life. The court also ordered her to pay Arthur a $5,000 lump sum property settlement. Penny appeals these provisions. On our de novo review, we find them equitable.
I. Alimony
Alimony payable for life is designed to provide the receiving spouse with support comparable to what he or she would have received if the marriage continued. In re Marriage of Hettinga, 574 N.W.2d 920, 922 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). Factors to be considered in awarding alimony include "the length of the marriage, the physical health of the parties, the distribution of marital property, the earning capacity of each party, and the feasibility of the party seeking maintenance to become self-supporting." In re Marriage of Imhoff, 461 N.W.2d 343, 345 (Iowa Ct.App. 1990).
After consideration of these factors, we are persuaded that neither the amount nor duration of the district court's alimony award is excessive. Penny and Arthur were married for over thirteen years. Arthur was seventy-three years old at the time of trial and suffered from significant health problems including diabetes mellitus with secondary neuropathy, degenerative joint disease and osteoarthritis, prostate enlargement, significant risk of abdominal aortic aneurysm, hypertension with secondary structural heart disease, memory loss/dementia, peptic ulcer disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. His son testified he was receiving help from a home health aide and would likely have to move to an assisted living facility. While Penny also acquired some health problems following a car accident and a fall on ice, these accidents did not materially limit her earning capacity.
This condition involves "peripheral nerve damage," often resulting in loss of sensation, leg pain and/or numbness, and skin ulcers.
Penny initially had a successful career as a national sales director for a promotional photography company. She later obtained a physician's assistant degree and began an equally successful career in this chosen field. At the time of trial, she was fifty-two years old and earning approximately $60,000. In contrast, Arthur had retirement income of only $19,884 and no potential to increase his earning capacity, given his limited education, extended absence from the workforce, and chronic health problems.
Finally, we note Penny received much of the marital property. This factor, together with the others summarized above, support the district court's award of $500 per month in alimony for Arthur's life. Cf. Imhoff, 461 N.W.2d at 345 (affirming alimony award of $600 per month to wife, despite husband's limited net monthly income, given wife's age, health, and inability to work).
II. Property Distribution
Penny next contends the district court should not have ordered her to pay Arthur a property settlement of $5,000, in light of her alimony obligation and debt load. We disagree.
The only property Arthur received was an unencumbered 1990 Sonoma pickup, valued at $2000, and his personal belongings. Penny, in contrast, was awarded the family home, valued at $140,000 and containing $25,000 in equity, as well as other encumbered property. Although we recognize Penny will have to pay off debt to reacquire some of the property she was awarded, the record reflects she has the means to do so, even after consideration of the alimony obligation.
We note Penny was also ordered to assume debts totaling $26,530.84. We believe this allocation of debts "fairly reflects the parties' financial ability to assume them." In re Marriage of Geil, 509 N.W.2d 738, 741 (Iowa 1993).