In Re the Marriage of Benjamin Rigdon and Alicia Rigdon Upon the Petition of Benjamin Rigdon, petitioner-appellee/cross-appellant, and Concerning Alicia Rigdon, respondent-appellant/cross-appellee.
16-0768
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jan 25, 2017Background
- Benjamin and Alicia Rigdon married in 2000; their son L.J.R. was born in 2009. Divorce petition filed by Benjamin on June 22, 2015.
- Alicia moved out of state (New Jersey, then Georgia) in 2014 for work; Benjamin remained in Iowa and became primary caregiver for the child.
- Alicia received a net monetary settlement (~$195,000) from a dispute with her New Jersey employer during the marriage and after she left Iowa.
- District court awarded Benjamin physical care of L.J.R., found no pattern of domestic violence, and emphasized stability/continuity with the child’s school and long‑term caregiver.
- District court treated distribution by excluding the settlement from marital property (effectively allowing Alicia to retain it) and ordered an equalization payment of $53,368 from Benjamin to Alicia.
- Both parties appealed: Alicia challenged the physical‑care award; Benjamin cross‑appealed the treatment/distribution of the settlement proceeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Alicia) | Defendant's Argument (Ben) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physical care of the minor child | Alicia argued she should have primary physical care because she had been the primary caregiver and alleged Ben’s abusive conduct makes him unfit | Ben argued he was the stable, on‑site primary caregiver after Alicia left and that awarding him care preserves continuity | Court affirmed award of physical care to Ben—no proven pattern of domestic violence; stability/continuity in Iowa (school, caregiver, friends) favored Ben |
| Characterization and division of Alicia’s settlement proceeds | Alicia argued the settlement compensated her for an individual injury and should remain her separate asset | Ben argued the settlement was marital and should be divided (akin to severance or marital asset) | Settlement treated as marital asset in record, but court affirmed distribution that effectively set the net $195,000 off to Alicia (using Plasencia reasoning that isolated, individual compensation can remain with injured spouse); equalization payment unchanged |
| Appellate attorney fees | Alicia sought fees | Ben sought fees | Court declined to award appellate attorney fees to either party (discretionary denial considering needs, ability to pay, and merits) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (stability and continuity are important factors in physical‑care determinations)
- In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165 (Iowa 1974) (best‑interest standard for child custody/physical care)
- In re Marriage of Schriner, 695 N.W.2d 493 (Iowa 2005) (two‑step framework: classify property then equitably divide marital estate)
- In re Marriage of McNerney, 417 N.W.2d 205 (Iowa 1987) (personal‑injury proceeds treated as marital assets where both spouses were involved)
- In re Marriage of Plasencia, 541 N.W.2d 923 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (personal injury recovery for an individually sustained injury may properly remain with the injured spouse)