Opinion
No. 0-635 / 00-0117.
Filed June 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, WILLIAM R. EADS and DAVID S. GOOD, Judges.
The guardians and conservator appeal from district court orders awarding Dorothy Mills spousal support. REVERSED.
William J. Neppl and Vernon P. Squires of Bradley Riley, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellants.
Anne E.H. Hoskins of Fishel Hoskins, Marion, for appellee.
Heard by SACKETT, C.J., and ZIMMER, and MILLER, JJ.
The guardians and the conservator of Ray Mills appeal from district court orders awarding the ward's wife, Dorothy Mills, a monthly spousal support stipend from the conservatorship estate. We reverse.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Ray and Dorothy Mills were married in 1971. Dorothy and Ray were fifty-nine and fifty-seven, respectively, when they married. The marriage was the second for both of them. Ray has four children by his prior marriage and Dorothy has two children by her prior marriage. The parties entered into an antenuptial agreement before their marriage. The agreement provided that each disclaimed any interest in the other's estate, with limited exceptions. After their marriage, Ray and Dorothy lived on Ray's farm near Center Point. Most of the family's living expenses were paid from Ray's checking account.
Ray suffers from advanced dementia. He began experiencing memory problems in 1992. His memory deteriorated significantly over time. In late 1997, Dorothy concluded she was no longer able to care for Ray. She left the family farm and moved to an assisted living complex in town. When she left, she had approximately $150,000 in investments of her own. Ray continues to live on the farm. He requires care twenty-four hours a day. His children do not wish to institutionalize him. In 1999, Ray was placed under a guardianship and conservatorship. His two daughters were appointed as his guardians. The court appointed his son, Marc, as his conservator. The parties' marriage has not been dissolved.
Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, a hearing was held in district court on October 1, 1999 to address several disputed issues regarding the conservatorship. One of the issues was whether the conservator should be ordered to pay a monthly support stipend to Dorothy from Ray's conservatorship assets. At the time of trial Dorothy had assets totaling $122,622 and Ray had assets totaling approximately $375,000, not including outstanding loans to family members totaling approximately $92,000.
Following hearing, Judge William Eads entered an order on October 17, 1999, awarding monthly spousal support of $815 to Dorothy over the objections of the conservator. The record suggests the district court determined Dorothy's monthly living expenses totaled $1,894, and then subtracted her projected monthly income from her own resources ($1,079), in arriving at the amount of monthly support ($815). Following an Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 1.904(2) motion, the court reduced the support award to $515 per month by order entered December 16, 1999. The court modified its order after acknowledging that Dorothy improperly included a monthly allocation of $300 to savings as an expense item. The guardians and conservator appealed.
Dorothy actually included an allocation of $329 per month to savings in calculating her monthly expenses.
Our supreme court transferred the appeal to this court and we scheduled oral argument. While the appeal was pending, we granted the appellants' motion for limited remand after the parties discovered that the financial information relied on by the trial court in setting the level of spousal support was incomplete. We remanded to allow the trial court to conduct such proceedings as were necessary to resolve appellants' contention that newly discovered evidence existed concerning Dorothy's level of income which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been produced at trial. We retained jurisdiction of the appeal.
Following remand, the guardians and conservator filed a motion to vacate the previous judgment of the district court. Dorothy Mills responded with a motion to dismiss the motion to vacate. Judge David Good heard the motions on March 6, 2001. The evidence presented to Judge Good confirmed that Dorothy had additional income. The parties became aware of this income when the conservator received notice that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) had issued a deficiency based on inaccuracies in Ray and Dorothy Mills' 1998 joint income tax return. According to the IRS, Dorothy had unreported dividend income of $4,923 in 1998 from National Financial Services. This dividend income was not included in the evidence presented at the first trial.
On July 13, 2001, Judge Good overruled Dorothy's motion to dismiss and modified the spousal support award by reducing it from $515 to $215 per month. The conservator filed a Rule 1.904(2) motion requesting the court to enlarge or amend its ruling because he could not determine the factual basis for the award made by the court. On May 1, 2002, the district court modified its ruling of July 13, 2001. The district court stated:
The Court corrects the monthly award from $215 per month to $107.80 to pay off the income tax delinquency so long as the deficiency exists. That amount would be consistent with the ruling of Judge Eads in granting the stipend. I amend the Ruling of July 13th to correct the monthly stipend to $107.80 for so long as necessary to pay the tax deficiency assessed against Dorothy Mills.
After the district court's final ruling, each party filed a Report to the Court and Request for Relief with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. Neither party has requested the opportunity for further briefing or supplementation of the record.
On appeal, the parties interpret the district court's order of May 2, 2002 very differently. Dorothy claims the order means the spousal allowance of $215 per month should commence November 1, 1999, but be temporarily reduced to the sum of $107.80 per month until the tax deficiency assessed against Dorothy Mills has been paid. According to Dorothy, this would occur in 10.28 months. At this point, the allowance would return to the sum of $215 per month and continue until terminated or modified. The guardians and conservator contend the May 2, 2002 order limits the conservator's obligation to pay spousal support to the amount of the tax deficiency actually paid by Dorothy Mills. They contend this amount is zero and therefore, Dorothy is entitled to no spousal support. If we disagree with their reading of the district court's order, appellants reiterate the position they originally advanced on appeal, namely that the facts and law do not require the conservator to pay any spousal support to Dorothy.
II. Discussion.
We begin by noting that it was within the authority of the district court to consider an award of spousal support under the circumstances presented by this case. See In re Guardianship and Conservatorship of Cerven, 334 N.W.2d 337, 340 (Iowa Ct.App. 1983). We further conclude the parties' antenuptial agreement does not preclude consideration of an award of spousal support under the circumstances presented here.
We next address the conservator's contention the monthly stipend should have been reduced further, or eliminated altogether, by the district court on remand under the facts of this case. As earlier noted, the decree entered by Judge Eads on December 16, 1999, awarded Dorothy a monthly stipend of $515. Evidence presented on remand revealed Dorothy had additional income in 1998 of $4,923. This amounts to additional monthly income of $410.25. Dorothy acknowledges that her actual monthly income in 1999 was $1,489.25, as opposed the $1,079 figure claimed at the first trial. Dorothy's additional monthly income reduces her monthly living expense deficit from $515 to $104.75 per month.
Upon review of the record, we conclude an award of spousal support is unwarranted at this time. Dorothy's current monthly shortfall is not significant given her considerable savings and investments. In addition, Ray Mills' average monthly expense for home health care exceeds $4,000 per month and his monthly expenses exceed his monthly income by approximately $1,900. We reverse the district court's decision to award spousal support to Dorothy Mills.
REVERSED.