In Re the Marriage of Carol Lynn Gupton and Wendee Kay Brown Upon the Petition of Carol Lynn Gupton, and Concerning Wendee Kay Brown
16-1784
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jun 21, 2017Background
- Parties: Carol Lynn Gupton (petitioner/appellee) and Wendee Kay Brown (respondent/appellant), partners since 1994, married in 2010; two children (adopted by Carol).
- Separation and proceedings: Carol filed for dissolution Sept. 24, 2015; trial July 19, 2016; decree Aug. 31, 2016; post-trial rule 1.904(2) motions and district court rulings followed; appeal filed by Wendee.
- Employment: Wendee is an Omaha firefighter; Carol previously self‑employed (selling defibrillators) and later worked for Papillion Fire Dept.
- Custody: District court awarded joint legal custody and shared physical care; Wendee sought sole physical care.
- Property contested items: treatment of premarital accounts, valuation of Carol’s business (PPE), and division of retirement via QDRO (whether post‑dissolution increases are divisible).
Issues
| Issue | Wendee's Argument | Carol's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / error preservation of appeal | Wendee’s timely rule 1.904(2) motion tolled appeal period | Carol argued Wendee’s motion improperly rehashed trial issues and should not toll appeal time | Wendee’s motion was proper; appeal timely (rule amendments also noted) |
| Physical care of children | Wendee sought primary/sole physical care (argued daughter’s preference and biological parent status) | Carol defended shared physical care; evidence of substantial caregiving by both | Court affirmed shared physical care—best interests (Hansen factors) support shared arrangement |
| Consideration of premarital assets in property division | Wendee argued court should consider Carol’s premarital accounts (~$200k) | Carol relied on court’s approach to divide assets from date of legal marriage forward | Court upheld district court’s exclusion of premarital assets from marital division as equitable given parties’ insistence and marriage length calculation |
| Valuation of Carol’s business (PPE) | Wendee challenged low $10,000 valuation (presented evidence of higher asset totals) | Carol testified business maintained pre‑marriage value; court considered appreciation only | Court affirmed $10,000 valuation as within range of evidence—only marital appreciation divided |
| QDRO / pension increases after dissolution | Wendee argued QDRO improperly awards Carol post‑dissolution increases and deferred/bonus growth | Carol and court relied on percentage method allocating share at time of maturity to avoid denying return on investment | Court affirmed QDRO: percentage method valid; allows Carol proportionate share of increases at benefit maturity in described circumstances |
| Attorney fees and appeal costs | Wendee did not seek fees on appeal | Carol sought fees and full costs | No attorney fees awarded; appeal costs split equally |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (factors for determining joint physical care)
- In re Marriage of Winter, 223 N.W.2d 165 (Iowa 1974) (non‑exclusive list of child custody factors)
- In re Marriage of Schriner, 695 N.W.2d 493 (Iowa 2005) (equitable distribution and treatment of marital assets)
- In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N.W.2d 252 (Iowa 1996) (percentage method for dividing pensions)
- In re Marriage of Klein, 522 N.W.2d 625 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (post‑dissolution pension increases generally not divisible)
- Homan v. Branstad, 887 N.W.2d 153 (Iowa 2016) (proper scope of a rule 1.904(2) motion)
- Hedlund v. State, 875 N.W.2d 720 (Iowa 2016) (only proper rule 1.904(2) motions toll appeal time)