Opinion
No. 3-044 / 02-0620
Filed March 26, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Mary Jane Sokolovske, Judge.
The petitioner appeals various economic provisions of the parties' dissolution decree. AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Patrick Murphy of Murphy Collins, P.L.C., LeMars, for appellant.
Randy Waagmeester of Waagmeester Law Office, P.L.C., Rock Rapids, for appellee.
Heard by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
A former spouse appeals the property, alimony, and health insurance provisions of a dissolution decree. We affirm as modified.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Shelly and Melvin Wallinga met in college and married two years later. After the marriage, Shelly quit college and began working as a clerk-typist. Melvin attended medical school.
When their first daughter was born, the parties agreed Shelly would stay home to care for her. Later, two more daughters were born. Shelly remained at home to care for them while Melvin pursued his medical career. For about two decades, her only wage-earning positions were a part-time babysitting job and an evening stock clerk position.
After twenty-three years of marriage, Shelly sought a divorce. By this time, two of the children were adults and in college. The third was a freshman in high school. The parties agreed the youngest would stay with Shelly.
Following trial, the district court ordered Melvin to pay child support and maintain health insurance for the youngest daughter. In a post-trial ruling, the court declined to order Melvin to provide health insurance for the adult children or to bear more than fifty percent of the unreimbursed medical expenses.
The court also ordered Melvin to pay college support of $3,333 for each of the older children. The court awarded Shelly rehabilitative alimony of $1,000 per month for nine years. As for the property distribution, the court awarded Shelly the parties' home, valued at $153,000, but ordered her to assume the mortgage of $33,358. Shelly also received several retirement accounts and mutual funds. The net property settlement was $272,986.29 for Shelly and $299,680.25 for Melvin.
On appeal, Shelly challenges the district court's:
1) alimony award,
2) property division, and
3) health insurance provisions.
Our review is de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4.
II. Alimony
Shelly seeks traditional or permanent rather than rehabilitative alimony. Traditional or permanent alimony is awarded to allow a spouse to become self-supporting at a standard of living reasonably comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage. In re Marriage of Grady-Woods, 577 N.W.2d 851, 853-54 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). It is payable for life or for so long as a dependent spouse is incapable of self-support. Id. Rehabilitative alimony serves to support an economically dependent spouse through a limited period of education and retraining, with the goal of establishing self-sufficiency. Id.
We believe Shelly is entitled to a traditional alimony award. Early in the marriage, the parties agreed Shelly would essentially forego a wage-earning career in order to raise the children. As a result, Shelly had negligible earnings for almost two decades. Although at the time of the dissolution she had obtained a position as a part-time teacher's aide, the position paid less than $12,000 annually. In contrast, Melvin earned more than $150,000 annually. While it is true Shelly was only forty-four years old at the time of the dissolution and was in relatively good health, her post-high school education was dated and incomplete, limiting her prospects for significantly enhancing her earning capacity. See In re Marriage of O'Rourke, 547 N.W.2d 864, 867 (Iowa Ct.App. 1996) (noting wife's position as a realtor earning $53,000 annually was insufficient to support her pre-dissolution lifestyle). Accordingly, we modify the dissolution decree to provide for the payment of traditional alimony of $1,000 per month until Melvin begins receiving social security retirement benefits.
III. Property
Shelly contends the district court's property distribution was inequitable. To equalize the settlement, she asks that we order Melvin to pay the outstanding mortgage on the home she was awarded. We view alimony and property provisions of a decree together. In re Marriage of Trickey, 589 N.W.2d 753, 756 (Iowa Ct.App. 1998). Although the property division was not equal, we believe it is equitable in light of our modified alimony disposition.
IV. Health Insurance
Shelly argues that the district court should have required Melvin to maintain major medical hospitalization insurance for his two adult daughters. She concedes, however, that this is not statutorily required. She further concedes that Melvin has volunteered to provide coverage for his two older children as long as his employer provides it. This is the best Shelly could hope for.
Shelly also contends the court should have ordered Melvin to pay eighty-eight percent of the medical expenses not covered by insurance. In support of this contention, she cites Iowa Court Rule 9.10 in the child support guidelines, authorizing division of uncovered medical expenses in proportion to the parties' respective incomes.
The district court found that, as Melvin was bearing the cost of insurance, he should be responsible for only half the unreimbursed expenses. The court's order was consistent with Iowa Code section 598.21(4)(a) (2001), which authorizes deviation from the child support guidelines based on the "premium cost of the health benefit plan." Accordingly, we decline to modify this portion of the court's ruling.
V. Appellate Attorney Fees
Both parties seek appellate attorney fees. An award is discretionary. In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252, 258 (Iowa 1996). We order Melvin to pay $500 toward Shelly's attorney fees.