In Re the Marriage of Mbongya Salehe and Fitina Charlotte Upon the Petition of Mbongya Salehe, and Concerning Fitina Charlotte
16-0759
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jun 21, 2017Background
- Parties married in 1996 in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo; due to war they lived apart at times and later relocated (Charlotte to U.S. in 2008; Salehe joined her in 2010).
- Both employed at Tyson Foods (2015 incomes: Charlotte $33,000; Salehe $43,800).
- Divorce petition filed by Salehe in March 2015; trial in March 2016; decree entered April 6, 2016.
- District court divided marital assets: Charlotte retained a $5,000 bank account and a 2007 Jeep; Salehe received a 2002 Mercury, a 2005 Honda Pilot (with debt), and his bank accounts (and is repaying a $4,000 retirement loan).
- Charlotte alleged (1) inequitable property division and sought an equalization payment related to the 2011 tax refund used to buy the Mercury, (2) dissipation of marital assets for Salehe’s engagement/promise ceremony, (3) entitlement to reimbursement alimony for enabling Salehe’s relocation and settlement, and (4) entitlement to full trial attorney fees and appellate fees.
- District court awarded partial attorney fees ($1,250) from Salehe and split court costs; appeal followed (Salehe did not file an appellee brief).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Charlotte) | Defendant's Argument (Salehe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equalization payment for Mercury/tax refund | The Mercury was bought with the parties’ 2011 joint tax refund; Charlotte seeks half the refund or half the car value | Division overall was equitable given asset values and debts | No equalization payment; division was equitable given relative assets/debts |
| Dissipation of marital assets (ceremony expenses) | Salehe spent ~$2,000 on an engagement/promise ceremony after separation — should be treated as dissipation | Salehe testified he paid only modest transportation; new girlfriend paid most costs | Court rejected dissipation claim; insufficient evidence to prove marital-asset dissipation |
| Reimbursement alimony | Charlotte funded Salehe’s relocation/settlement and enabled his earning capacity, so she should get reimbursement alimony | Reimbursement alimony applies only where marriage was largely devoted to one spouse’s education/advancement producing few tangible assets | Denied; facts do not fit reimbursement-alimony paradigm (not a short marriage devoted to one’s education) |
| Trial and appellate attorney fees | Charlotte seeks full recovery of $4,296 trial fees and appellate fees | District court ordered partial fee ($1,250) and split costs; Salehe’s higher income considered | District court’s partial-fee award affirmed; appellate fees denied given modest means and unsuccessful appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa 2013) (standard for appellate review of dissolution decrees)
- In re Marriage of Rhinehart, 704 N.W.2d 677 (Iowa 2005) (de novo review with deference to credibility findings)
- In re Marriage of Gensley, 777 N.W.2d 705 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (weight given to district court’s observations of witnesses)
- In re Marriage of Brown, 778 N.W.2d 47 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (deference to factual findings on credibility)
- In re Marriage of Liebich, 547 N.W.2d 844 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (spouses entitled to equitable share of property accumulated jointly)
- In re Marriage of Hoak, 364 N.W.2d 185 (Iowa 1985) (equitable division need not be equal)
- In re Marriage of Olson, 705 N.W.2d 312 (Iowa 2005) (dissipation of assets is a proper consideration)
- In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 2007) (standards for proving dissipation)
- In re Marriage of Francis, 442 N.W.2d 59 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989) (reimbursement alimony applies to short marriages devoted to one spouse’s education)
- In re Marriage of Probasco, 676 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2004) (limits on reimbursement alimony when marriage not devoted to educational advancement)
- In re Marriage of Tzortzoudakis, 507 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993) (alimony as substitute for legal obligation of support)
- In re Marriage of Gust, 858 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2015) (alimony is fact-specific and not a right)
- In re Marriage of Giles, 338 N.W.2d 544 (Iowa Ct. App. 1983) (trial court’s attorney-fee award reviewed for abuse of discretion)