In Re the Marriage of Julie Ann Miller and Claude Earl Miller Upon the Petition of Julie Ann Miller, N/K/A Julie Ann Minikus and Concerning Claude Earl Miller
16-0504
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Julie Minikus and Claude Miller married in 2001 and separated in October 2013; Julie filed for dissolution in March 2014.
- Parties stipulated to division of some assets but disputed three main economic issues at trial: valuation of the marital residence, whether $44,000 Claude inherited pre-marriage (later ≈ $39,819 in an E*TRADE account) should be divisible, and the amount of an equalization payment from Claude to Julie.
- Claude produced a certified appraisal (March 2014) valuing the home at $152,000 (sales comparison) and $181,692 (cost approach); Julie offered a comparative market analysis and argued a value over $181,692.
- Claude had used his pre-marital inheritance to pay Julie’s pre-marital debts and taxes; the inheritance was later placed in joint accounts and ended up in an E*TRADE account in Claude’s name by separation.
- The district court: adopted the $152,000 sales-comparison appraisal value; excluded the inheritance (≈ $39,819) from divisible property; and reduced an equalization payment by $10,000 (from $39,036.50 to $29,036.50), citing Julie’s $18,000 cash advance on Claude’s credit card and Claude’s post-separation debt/mortgage payments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Julie) | Defendant's Argument (Claude) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valuation of marital residence | Home value is ~$181,692 (cost approach) or higher per comparative market analysis; appraisal cost approach is more accurate | Home value is $152,000 per certified appraiser’s sales-comparison approach | Court adopted $152,000 sales-comparison value; appellate court affirmed as within evidentiary range |
| Divisibility of premarital inheritance ($44,000) | Inheritance was commingled in joint accounts and used for marital purposes; should be divisible | Inherited funds retained separate character in investment account; exempt unless inequitable to exclude | Inheritance excluded from divisible property; exclusion not inequitable because Julie benefitted from payments Claude made pre-marriage and thereafter |
| Equalization payment amount | $10,000 reduction is inequitable; insufficient evidence of how Julie used $18,000 cash advance or post-separation expenses | Reduction is equitable because Julie took an $18,000 cash advance (benefiting her) and Claude paid more post-separation debts and mortgage | $10,000 reduction upheld; court found Claude bore repayment responsibility and paid post-separation debts benefitting Julie |
| Timeliness / Jurisdiction to hear appeal | Julie implicitly contends appeal is timely due to a Rule 1.904(2) motion tolling the deadline | Claude contends appeal is untimely and court lacks jurisdiction | Appellate court assumed, without deciding, that the 1.904(2) motion tolled time; proceeded to decide on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Clinton, 579 N.W.2d 835 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (standard for de novo review of dissolution issues)
- In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (trial-court findings given weight, especially credibility; valuation not disturbed if within evidentiary range)
- In re Marriage of Liebich, 547 N.W.2d 844 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (factors for deciding whether to include premarital inheritance in property division)