In Re the Marriage of Steven Michael Gust and Linda Leann Gust Upon the Petition of Steven Michael Gust
858 N.W.2d 402
| Iowa | 2015Background
- Marriage of nearly 27 years; Linda stayed home and Linda earned about $22,500/year while Steven earned about $92,000/year.
- Trial court awarded Linda traditional spousal support of $1,400/month while child support for a minor lasted, increasing to $2,000/month thereafter, for life.
- Court divided assets roughly equally; Linda netted about $81,651 vs. Steven $62,249; retirement accounts awarded were $58,000 to Linda and $136,000 to Steven (2012 valuations).
- Steven engaged in Sound Real Estate, LLC, but earnings from that venture were excluded from his current earning capacity; SafeCon potential future work noted but not relied on for current income.
- Linda’s earning capacity determined at trial was $22,500/year; Steven’s earning capacity found to be $92,000/year; two households and debt impacted living standards.
- On review, Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals on spousal support issues but retained questions about retirement impact; concurrence/dissent addressed retirement modification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is $2,000/month indefinite spousal support fair? | Gust argues the amount is fair given Linda's need and Steven's ability to pay. | Wording argues Linda cannot sustain lifetime support given retirement prospects and asset/liability analysis. | Affirmed: traditional support deemed fair; retirement issue reserved for modification. |
| Should retirement affect the initial spousal support award? | Linda contends retirement should be considered in setting duration and amount. | Steven contends retirement should terminate or modify ongoing support when retirement occurs. | Retirement impact deferred to modification actions; initial award not conditioned on retirement. |
| What is the appropriate framework to assess spousal support under Iowa Code 598.21A(1)? | Linda relies on long-marriage and need/earning-capacity factors to justify ongoing support. | Steven argues for consideration of earnings disparity and retirement implications within statutory factors. | Court applies multifactored framework acknowledging long duration and need vs. payor ability; no fixed formula. |
| May retirement considerations be used to reduce or terminate lifetime spousal support at age 66 or upon retirement? | Defers to judicial discretion based on record; ongoing need justifies support. | Retirement should terminate or be reducible when payor retires and cannot pay. | Deferred modification; retirement questions addressed in Michael/Maryland-like approach; not ripe for initial decree. |
| Should the court rely on the AAML guidelines or ALI principles as benchmarks? | Guidelines offer a reality check for determining appropriate support levels. | Guidelines are not binding Iowa law; multifactored statutory framework controls. | Guidelines and ALI principles cited for context; not binding, but inform fairness under 598.21A. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Michael, 839 N.W.2d 680 (Iowa 2013) (retirement issues deferred to modification; lifetime award may be appropriate only with sufficient record)
- In re Marriage of Olson, 705 N.W.2d 312 (Iowa 2005) (deference to trial court; equity standard for modification)
- In re Marriage of Becker, 756 N.W.2d 822 (Iowa 2008) (existing framework for determining need vs. ability; rehabilitation vs. traditional alimony context)
- In re Marriage of Schenkelberg, 824 N.W.2d 481 (Iowa 2012) (multifactored approach; all factors must be considered together)
- In re Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59 (Iowa 1989) (early articulation of traditional, rehabilitation, and reimbursement alimony categories)