In Re the Marriage of Melinda S. Rath and Keith A. Rath Upon the Petition of Melinda S. Rath, and Concerning Keith A. Rath
16-0965
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jul 19, 2017Background
- Keith and Melinda Rath divorced; Keith appealed the dissolution decree entered by the Benton County District Court.
- Central dispute: district court awarded the marital home to Melinda to sell, with provisions addressing IRS liens attached to the property from Keith’s criminal conduct.
- Keith conceded IRS liens existed and that he should be responsible for them, but argued he should be allowed to buy/keep the house if he could obtain financing or that the court should impose sale "parameters."
- Keith raised multiple evidentiary and fairness complaints at trial (admission of an exhibit, impeachment evidence, unequal latitude in testimony); many claims were unpreserved or unsupported by legal authority.
- The court found Melinda could keep proceeds up to her one-half share (net of lien effects) and required Keith to reimburse her if liens consumed more than half of net proceeds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Melinda) | Defendant's Argument (Rath) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership/sale of marital home | Award the house to Melinda to sell; she keeps proceeds per decree | Keith wanted right to purchase/keep house if he could finance it; objected to Melinda being seller | Affirmed: court may award home to Melinda to sell; nothing precludes Keith from buying it; no inequity shown |
| Treatment of IRS liens | Melinda should be protected from lien impact on her share; decree addresses reimbursement | Keith argued decree unfairly let Melinda keep proceeds while liens are his responsibility | Affirmed: decree allocated risk to Keith and required reimbursement if liens consumed >1/2 of net proceeds |
| Exclusion of exhibit | Melinda objected; exhibit not self-authenticating | Keith argued the exhibit proved signature/filing | Not preserved: exhibit excluded for lack of foundation; no offer of proof, claim waived |
| Impeachment and testimony latitude | Melinda allowed to impeach Keith using past conviction; court applied rules | Keith argued he was unfairly limited from testifying about alleged prior forgery and other matters | Affirmed: conviction involving dishonesty is admissible as mandatory impeachment; Keith failed to provide legal authority for claimed error; issues waived |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Woodward’s Marriage, 229 N.W.2d 274 (Iowa 1975) (de novo review for dissolution/property determinations)
- In re Marriage of Daniels, 568 N.W.2d 51 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (offer of proof required to preserve exclusion-of-evidence claims)
- Hays v. Hays, 612 N.W.2d 817 (Iowa Ct. App. 2000) (pro se parties receive no special procedural leniency)
- State v. Harrington, 800 N.W.2d 46 (Iowa 2011) (Iowa R. Evid. 5.609(a)(2) requires admission of convictions involving dishonesty for impeachment)
- In re Marriage of Sullins, 715 N.W.2d 242 (Iowa 2006) (appellate attorney fees are discretionary; consider need, ability to pay, and merits)
- In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2005) (factors considered in awarding appellate attorney fees)