In Re the Marriage of Brian L. Freiberg and Amanda J. Freiberg Upon the Petition of Brian L. Freiberg, and Concerning Amanda J. Freiberg
16-1135
| Iowa Ct. App. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- Brian and Amanda Freiberg married in 2007 and have two children (age 7 and 5 at trial). Brian filed for dissolution in March 2015 seeking physical care or shared physical care.
- During the dissolution, parties followed an agreed parenting schedule: children stayed at the marital home during Amanda’s weekdays and at Brian’s father’s farm during Brian’s weekends; tensions and conflicts increased, affecting the older child’s behavior.
- A custody evaluator (Dr. Brian Steiner) was appointed; trial occurred April 6–7, 2016; decree filed May 3, 2016.
- District court awarded joint legal custody, awarded physical care to Amanda, and adopted a minimum visitation schedule for Brian (leaving parties free to agree to more liberal visitation).
- Court awarded the marital home to Amanda, one-half of the equity to Brian, and ordered Amanda to refinance and use the refinance appraisal to establish the home’s value; Brian appealed physical care, visitation, and valuation rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Brian's Argument | Amanda's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint physical care should be awarded | Parties can cooperate; factors favor joint care (stability, communication, parenting) | Parties have poor communication, history of conflict, differing parenting styles; joint care would harm children | Physical care awarded to Amanda; joint physical care denied. |
| Whether visitation schedule should be expanded (extraordinary visitation) | Expand visitation to approach joint physical care | Current minimum schedule is sufficient; parties may agree to more time voluntarily | Denied; court will not expand visitation to effectuate joint physical care. |
| Whether court properly delegated valuation of marital residence by ordering refinance appraisal | Court should have made an express valuation rather than delegate | Refinancing appraisal is reasonable to set value; costs split | Trial court improperly delegated valuation; appellate court sets value at $174,000 (within evidence range). |
| Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded | Requests fees | Requests fees | Denied for both parties. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165 (Iowa 1974) (non‑exclusive best‑interest factors for physical care)
- In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (factors relevant to joint physical care decisions)
- In re Marriage of Williams, 589 N.W.2d 759 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (de novo review of equitable actions)
- In re Marriage of Brown, 487 N.W.2d 331 (Iowa 1992) (trial court credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- In re Marriage of Lacaeyse, 461 N.W.2d 475 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (liberal visitation in children’s best interest)
- In re Marriage of Dennis, 467 N.W.2d 806 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991) (trial court has leeway in valuation methods but cannot delegate core duty)
- In re Marriage of Wiedemann, 402 N.W.2d 744 (Iowa 1987) (appellate valuation may stand if within range of evidence)
- In re Marriage of Scheppele, 524 N.W.2d 678 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (appellate attorney fees are discretionary)
- In re Marriage of Kurtt, 561 N.W.2d 385 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (factors for awarding appellate attorney fees)