In Re the Marriage of Abby Hoeger Naber and William Michael Naber Upon the Petition of Abby Hoeger Naber, and Concerning William Michael Naber
16-1767
| Iowa Ct. App. | Aug 2, 2017Background
- Abby (b.1981) and William (b.1974) divorced after marriage in 2004; they have three minor children born 2008, 2011, 2012. Both parents are involved and devoted to the children; Abby worked shifts that made her the primary caregiver pre-separation.
- Parties separated in July 2015; temporary orders (Aug 2015) awarded Abby use of the marital home and physical care of the children; William had visitation until trial in Aug 2016.
- Trial disputes focused on parenting involvement, communication, alcohol use, and some mental‑health history; no finding of domestic abuse. Both parties admitted the other is a good parent.
- District court awarded joint legal custody with shared physical care, declined to award child support or attorney fees, and set a property distribution that included an apparent $25,000 equalization payment from Abby to William.
- On appeal Abby challenged the physical‑care award and the equalization payment; both parties sought appellate attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Physical care/custody arrangement | Abby sought primary physical care for the children. | William supported shared physical care as ordered below. | Affirmed shared physical care; district court’s Hansen-factor analysis supported joint/shared care. |
| Property equalization payment | Abby argued the $25,000 equalization payment was erroneous and urged correction (also asserted a $3,500 personal loan should be considered). | William defended district court distribution and entitlement to equalization. | Modified: district court miscalculated; if house sold and proceeds split, Abby pays William $12,220.59; if William refinances and keeps home, William pays Abby $13,169.06. Abby’s $3,500 loan treated as her separate obligation. |
| Form/method of equalization payment | Abby requested payment via QDRO from retirement funds. | William did not address QDRO in briefing. | Court ordered the equalization payment to be satisfied by a QDRO prepared by the payor and submitted for approval within 90 days of refinancing or closing. |
| Appellate attorney fees | Abby requested fees. | William requested fees. | Denied fees to both parties; costs split equally. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Schenkelberg, 824 N.W.2d 481 (Iowa 2012) (standard of review for dissolution appeals)
- In re Marriage of Fennelly, 737 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 2007) (trial-specific facts control custody outcomes)
- In re Marriage of Will, 489 N.W.2d 394 (Iowa 1992) (custody best‑interest framework and nonstatutory factors)
- In re Marriage of Hansen, 733 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 2007) (factors for evaluating joint physical care)
- In re Marriage of Williams, 589 N.W.2d 759 (Iowa Ct. App. 1998) (weight of custody factors varies by case)
- In re Marriage of O’Rourke, 547 N.W.2d 864 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) (equitable property division principle)
- In re Marriage of Campbell, 623 N.W.2d 585 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001) (division need not be equal; must be fair)
- In re Marriage of Driscoll, 563 N.W.2d 640 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997) (flexibility in equitable distributions)
- In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2005) (factors for awarding appellate attorney fees)