In re Marriage of Doss & Huffer
20-0624
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jan 12, 2022Background
- Parties married in 2010 after executing a premarital agreement that allocated separate property; no children. Angela (senior director, ~$163k/yr + bonuses) moved to Arizona during litigation; Duane (JD, PhD, suspended law license) had limited recent income and mental-health issues.
- February 2018 separation followed violent incidents; Duane pled guilty to first-degree harassment, received a deferred judgment later revoked, and a no-contact and protective order were entered/extended.
- Angela paid off Duane’s mortgage equity pre-marriage, was later added to title; both parties claimed competing valuations of the marital home.
- Litigation featured multiple counsel withdrawals for Duane (including after threats to counsel), discovery disputes (Duane sought a late deposition of Angela), continuances, and late-exchanged exhibits that were not admitted.
- At trial the court enforced the premarital agreement, valued the home at $280,000, divided assets so each party left with roughly equal net wealth (~$1.15M Duane, ~$1.13M Angela), denied Duane spousal support, and awarded Angela attorney fees ($20,000 contribution ordered); the fee award was vacated on appeal.
- Duane appealed on multiple grounds including counsel withdrawals, discovery denial, credibility findings, property valuation/distribution, denial of spousal support, attorney-fee rulings, and alleged judicial partiality.
Issues
| Issue | Doss's Argument | Huffer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Withdrawal of first counsel | Withdrawal was justified by threats and ethical rules; no relief warranted | Court erred allowing withdrawal without notice/hearing and permitted disclosure of privileged info | Issue waived; no abuse of discretion shown in permitting withdrawal |
| Withdrawal of third counsel | Withdrawal was proper and consented to by Duane | Court wrongly characterized withdrawal as ethical when counsel refused Duane’s demands | No merit; Duane had concurred and record supports withdrawal |
| Additional discovery / deposition of Angela | Deny untimely deposition; discovery deadlines and scheduling controlled | Needed deposition to «clear up» credibility and facts; trial imminent so error | Denial discretionary, not abused; discovery was later reopened and Duane failed to act |
| Credibility of Angela | Court appropriately assessed credibility and largely did not rely on abuse evidence for property/support | Angela lied about abuse; court erred in finding her more credible | No reversible error; court either excluded abuse evidence for dispositive issues or credited trial testimony |
| Valuation of marital home & personal property | Court used premarital-agreement formula and adjusted for damage; valuation within evidentiary range | Court misvalued home, dish set, and accounts leading to inequitable distribution | Valuations were supported by record or immaterial to final equitable distribution; no change warranted |
| Distribution of assets (premarital agreement application) | Enforced premarital agreement; result equitable (nearly equal nets) | Court ignored premarital allocations and misallocated assets/debts | Distribution affirmed as equitable; premarital interests respected and debts from Duane’s independent litigation were excluded |
| Spousal support (temp & permanent) | No support warranted given equal distribution, education, employability | Duane needed transitional support given current low income and health issues | Denial affirmed: statutory factors weighed against support; Duane failed to prove decreased earning capacity |
| Attorney fees | Angela sought fees for responding to frivolous filings and delays; initially awarded $20,000 | Duane sought temporary fees; argued Angela should not get trial fees | Trial court’s fee award vacated on appeal: appellate court found Angela lacked demonstrated need and Duane lacked ability to pay; temporary-fee denial affirmed |
| Judicial partiality / procedure | Court acted within discretion managing trial and counsel issues | Judge was partial, condescending, and denied Duane opportunity to speak about counsel performance | Complaints immaterial to outcome; no reversible partiality found |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Larsen, 912 N.W.2d 444 (Iowa 2018) (dissolution proceedings reviewed de novo with weight given to district court findings)
- In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 2007) (appellate court gives weight to trial-court credibility findings)
- In re Marriage of Brown, 776 N.W.2d 644 (Iowa 2009) (dissolution rulings are fact-specific and precedent is limited)
- Fenceroy v. Gelita USA, Inc., 908 N.W.2d 235 (Iowa 2018) (discovery rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re Marriage of Keener, 728 N.W.2d 188 (Iowa 2007) (property valuation must be supported by evidence and will not be disturbed if within evidentiary range)
- Jones v. Univ. of Iowa, 836 N.W.2d 127 (Iowa 2013) (non-prejudicial discovery error is not a ground for reversal)
- Inghram v. Dairyland Mut. Ins. Co., 215 N.W.2d 239 (Iowa 1974) (appellate court will not fill gaps in appellant’s argument)
- In re Marriage of Stewart, 356 N.W.2d 611 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984) (court may consider best interests when awarding pets in dissolution)
- In re Marriage of Gust, 858 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2015) (marriage duration relevant to spousal support awards)
- Erpelding v. [case name], 917 N.W.2d 235 (Iowa 2018) (attorney-fee awards reviewed for abuse of discretion)